Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian archivists – members of a community that for many decades has thought deeply and widely about their profession – have published little about archival leadership. This neglect of leadership extends in fact throughout Canadian and English-language archival research journals. This short article aims to take a small step toward filling this large and perplexing gap in our scholarship. Two central questions are addressed: What does leadership in an archives look like? and Does this leadership differ at all in key respects from leadership in other institutions? In other words, do archivists have to be managed differently because the culture of an archives is sufficiently distinct from that of other workplaces? Outlining six aspects of leadership, the article addresses the qualities associated with successfully leading a team within an archives or with heading an archives. It then sketches six distinct features of the culture of an archives, arguing that archivists do need to be managed differently; leadership success hinges on sensitivity to the unique qualities of archival culture. This counterpoint closes by expressing hope that it provokes a reaction – that others will step forward to enrich reflection and debate on the distinct (or not) qualities of archival leadership.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".