Digital archives: problems of definition, systematization and boundaries of the research field. The end of the 20th – the first quarter of the 21st century
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
The article is devoted to the problematization and clarification of the term "digital archive", the analysis of priority areas in the research of digital archives and the issues of systematization of disparate sources in the digital space. As a result of the digital revolution and the general growth of interest in the preservation of historical heritage, new ways of processing and storing information have become widespread. Not only archives and libraries, but also scientific and educational organizations, specialists from various fields, as well as ordinary people have joined the creation and popularization of digital archives. In this context, archivists and historians were not so much interested in the definition of "digital archive", which is important for theoretical understanding, as in the specifics of working with electronic documents, ensuring their safety and use, the problems of finding approaches to the study of initially digital sources, the preservation and popularization of archival heritage in a digital environment. At the same time, many researchers (besides archivists and historians, anthropologists, folklorists, geographers, cultural scientists, historians of science, etc.) have started developing databases on topics that are close to them, which even colleagues from the same or related disciplines do not always know about. The current definitions of the term "digital archive" seem too general and vague. As a result, digital archives generally include all stored digital objects of some significance, any electronic documents, and even in the broadest sense, a social network or the entire Internet. On the other hand, the general, at first glance, definition of a digital archive as digitized collections of documents ignores initially digital documents. Taking into account the accumulated research experience, based on the analysis of the existing historiography on the problem and the identified gaps in understanding digital archives, the authors propose in the article to clarify the definition of the concept of "digital archive", drawing attention to several important circumstances: first, the need to cover both digitized and initially digital documents with this concept.; Secondly, the fact that digital documents undergo a selection procedure before becoming part of a digital archive (there will be no raw funds or random documents); thirdly, the feature of a digital archive is the presentation of documents in a systematic form. Of course, in creating a digital archive, an important role is played by the point of view when selecting documents and how they are systematized, and this is always subjective, which can both impose restrictions on their use and open up additional opportunities. The authors formulate the definition of a "digital archive" as a set of digitized or digitally created documents selected for storage and presented in a systematic way. One of the possible solutions to the problem of the fragmentation of digital sources (both digitized and initially digital) is the creation and publicly available publication of a consolidated catalog of digital archives, which is being developed by a team of authors at the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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