Training in Computational Archival Science: Do CAS Educational Frameworks meet Professional Expectations?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the evolving landscape of training for archival professionals in the context of big data and emerging technologies. By comparing two educational frameworks—the CAS framework, developed from computational thinking research and CAS research papers, and the InterPARES framework, based on empirical studies with archivists working with AI/ML, we identify areas of alignment and divergence. While both frameworks share significant concordance, suggesting a growing consensus on integrating computing into archival work, key differences in their approaches (learning outcomes vs. competencies) and focus areas (such as work practices, systems thinking, and cybersecurity) highlight the need for further discourse among archival scholars, educators, and practitioners. These distinctions must be addressed before formalizing CAS educational frameworks. This paper also initiates efforts to integrate emerging technological competencies by bridging the CAS and InterPARES frameworks, emphasizing the value of complementary perspectives from both professional practice and academic research. We argue that such integration is essential for developing robust competency frameworks in archival education, particularly within higher education's professional programs.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it