âNew Contexts of Permanent Changeâ in Digital Archivy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the 1987 conference of the Association of Canadian Archivists was the first national conference within Canada devoted to electronic records and automated archival techniques.However, Schaeffer noted that we should not feel too comfortable regard ing our sense of achievement in the intervening six years, as "many chal lenges [regarding electronic records] identified in 1987 remain unaddressed." 1 Schaeffer also alerted the reader to the potentially troubling fact that "there are more articles dedicated to the subject of automation here [in Archivaria 36] than appeared in all of the issues [of Archivaria] produced between 1976 and 1987." 2 Of course, the history of electronic records in Canada -and beyond -goes back earlier than 1976.Of particular note is Michael E. Carroll's case study of the Public Archives of Canada's (PAC) implementation of a "machine-read able archives" program, presented as a paper at the 1974 International Council on Archives Conference on Archives and Automation, and subsequently published in The Canadian Archivist. 3Betsey Baldwin's article in Archivaria 62 provides an excellent overview of the issues and controversies regarding electronic records and automation both within Canada -particularly at the PAC -and within the United States. 4Personally, however, I feel that one of the greatest influences on organizing this special issue has been a 1972 article by Hugh Taylor. 5While not specifically about electronic records, Taylor provides
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".