Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo tiene como objetivo principal dar a conocer a la comunidad de usuarios del software AtoM (Access to Memory) la plantilla RAD, correspondiente a la norma canadiense Rules for Archival Description. Las reglas canadienses cuentan con capítulos específicos para la descripción de documentos textuales, documentos en distintos tipos de soportes, materiales gráficos, materiales cartográficos, dibujos técnicos y de arquitectura, imágenes en movimiento, grabaciones sonoras, documentos electrónicos, microformas, objetos, documentos filatélicos y documentos aislados que no forman parte de un fondo o colección. Asimismo, se explica la aplicación que se hace de la plantilla en el Archivo General de Palacio en la descripción de planos de arquitectura y mapas. Y, por último, repasaremos su etiquetado EAD y el buscador de documentos. The main purpose of this article is to inform the community of users of the AtoM software about the RAD template, derived from the canadian standard Rules for Archival Description. These rules have several specific and usable chapters for the description of textual records, units consisting of multiple media, graphic materials, cartographic materials, architectural and technical drawings, moving images, sound recordings, records in electronic form, records on microform, objects, philatelic records and discrete items. Furthermore, the application of the template in the Archivo General de Palacio in the description of architectural drawings and maps is explained. And finally, we will review its EAD tagging and its search functionality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".