"So that they might be useful in the future" : exploring the futurity of international archival initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to explore the futurity of two international archival initiatives: Saving Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Online (SUCHO) and the Endangered Archives Programme (EAP). To accomplish this, the mechanics of archival work as articulated by the Association of Canadian Archivists, the Society of American Archivists, and the International Council on Archives were synthesized and placed in conversation with theories of intergenerational justice to argue that archivists can be obligated out of considerations of justice to conduct their practice for the benefit of future generations. A framework for “sustainable archives”—archives which enable present generations to meet their recordkeeping needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own recordkeeping needs—was developed to aid archivists in reconfiguring their practice to be more future-oriented in nature. A grounded theory approach to content analysis was utilized to discern the underlying assumptions about records, archives, and the applicability of archival praxis in future-oriented contexts exhibited through the websites of SUCHO and the EAP. This thesis concluded that neither SUCHO nor the EAP were entirely compatible with the sustainable archives framework, but that archives and archival associations can more intentionally become “future-beneficial” institutions by implementing “future beneficial” mechanisms in their institutions to achieve a better balance between the legitimate recordkeeping needs of present generations and the potential recordkeeping needs of future generations.
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 | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".