Training in Computational Archival Science: Do CAS Educational Frameworks meet Professional Expectations?
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".