MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391598739 · doi:10.32920/25164452.v1

Citizen Archivists: The Role of Retrontario in Sharing Television History

2024· preprint· en· W4391598739 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emma Stirling

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Space (punctuation)Style (visual arts)Political scienceMedia studiesSociologyArtComputer scienceVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This thesis studies the online archive Retrontario, run by Ed Conroy from his home. Retrontario focuses on finding and sharing Ontario’s local television content from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, that is inaccessible elsewhere.</p> <p>While Retrontario collects multiple forms of media, the largest are VHS tapes. These VHS tapes are mostly of content that was recorded from television and donated to Retrontario by the public. They are digitized by Conroy and posted online.</p> <p>Retrontario is not concerned with copyright in the manner government archives are. In addition, due to a lack of space, Retrontario is less focused on long-term preservation and storage than government archives are. Instead, Retrontario uses its freedoms within copyright to share a large quantity of material that would otherwise have not been seen.</p> <p>Conroy refers to this style of archiving as ‘Citizen Archivists’. The research question of this thesis is: What are the challenges and opportunities of Retrontario, and other Citizen Archivists in preserving and sharing local media history? This thesis explores the role Retrontario, and Citizen Archivists play within collections, and argues that despite Retrontario’s limitations, its work as an access-based platform is important television archiving.</p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207