An Introduction to the Thesis and Thesis Research in the Master of Archival\t\t\t\tStudies Program at the University of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the introduction to the abstracts of archival studies theses, the author sets the context by assessing the experience of research in the Master of Archival Studies Program in the School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies at the University of British Columbia. He pays particular attention to the role of the thesis in creating a solid research base as well as helping the program to establish itself as a separate field of study in the university.RÉSUMÉDans cette introduction aux résumés des thèses en études archivistiques, l’auteur établit le contexte en évaluant l’expérience de recherche au sein du programme de maîtrise en études archivistiques de la « School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies » de l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique. Il porte une attention particulière au rôle joué par les thèses pour créer une solide base de recherche de même que pour aider le programme à s’établir comme un champ d’étude autonome au sein de l’université.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.033 |
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".