What We Talk About When We Talk About Original Order in Writersâ Archives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article suggère que bien que la discussion au sujet du principe du respect de l'ordre d'origine et son application aux archives personnelles a été à la fois enrichie et complexifiée depuis quelques années, il existe toujours une grande confusion à la fois avec le sens de ce principe (c.-à.-d.ce qui constitue un ordre d'origine) et son importance (c.-à.-d.ce que l'on pense que l'ordre d'origine va communiquer).En se concentrant sur le sens et l'importance de l'ordre d'origine dans le contexte spécifique des archives des écrivains, cet article s'inspire des entrevues avec des archivistes et des bibliothécaires qui travaillent avec des archives littéraires et sur la recherche en archivistique pour conclure que les archivistes se doivent de mieux réfléchir à ce qu'ils veulent communiquer par rapport à l'ordre et à son importance, tant dans leurs discussions théoriques que dans les instruments de recherche qu'ils créent pour représenter les fonds d'archives.ABSTRACT This article suggests that although the discussion of the principle of respect for original order and its application to personal archives has been both enriched and complicated in recent years, considerable confusion remains concerning both the meaning of the principle (i.e., what constitutes an original order) and its significance (i.e., what it is that an original order is thought to communicate).Focusing on the meaning and significance of original order in the specific context of writers' archives, this article draws on interviews with archivists and librarians who work with literary archives and on archival research to argue that archivists need to think more carefully about what we convey about order and its significance in both our theoretical discussions and in the finding aids we create to represent fonds.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".