MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W619974427

Indian Department Headquarters Records, 1844–1861: A Case Study in Recordkeeping and Archival Custody

2013· article· en· W619974427 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bill Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecords managementBureaucracyNational archivesHumanitiesGovernorHistoryPolitical scienceEthnologyLibrary scienceLawArtPoliticsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette tude dcrit les systmes de gestion de documents et les pratiques du bureau du ministre indien, 1844-1861, priode durant laquelle le secrtaire du gouverneur gnral servait comme surintendant en chef des affaires indiennes.Dans l'histoire de la gestion des documents du ministre indien, cette priode a prcd une transition.Le bureau du surintendant en chef du ministre indien tait petit et ses pratiques refltaient une approche laissez-faire; les documents se trouvaient dans des dossiers ( dockets ), des livres de copies de lettres, des registres et des sommaires, des formes de documents qui sont inconnus de la plupart des chercheurs d'aujourd'hui.D'normes changements devaient encore se produire dans le dernier quart du XIX e sicle quand la prolifration du papier, rsultant de l'expansion gographique et des besoins des politiques d'assimilation, a oblig l'agence de se pencher sur les lacunes d'un systme de gestion de documents conu pour une bureaucratie beaucoup moins complexe.Cet article dresse le chemin par lequel les documents du bureau du ministre indien ont voyag partir de l'entreposage semi-actif du ministre jusqu' leur versement aux archives et leur tat actuel de classement et de description Bibliothque et Archives Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists)Same topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207