Les archives définitives : un début de parcours. Revisiter le cycle de vie et le Records continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancing the position that, in order to be fully archival, records must be considered from the perspective of their use by researchers, the goal of this article is to integrate this dimension into archival models and to consider how it changes our understanding of their temporality.Far from being a final step, definitive archives appear to be instead the beginning of a trajectory that is necessarily open and evolving.This working hypothesis is first examined through the lens of five elements that, according to the authors, characterize definitive archives in the classic sense.Then, a review of the principal aspects of the life cycle model and its criticism by postmodern archivists leads the authors to discuss the records continuum model and its limits, chiefly silence with regard to the use of archives.Next, by highlighting the use of archives for creative purposes, the authors demonstrate that a new dimension to the records continuum appears, which is characterized by four elements: a framework, emotion, terms and conditions of use, and the dialectic vision of archives.Finally, it is possible to create a different concept of their temporality that shows that the moments of creation and preservation are necessarily aligned with a moment of use characterized by the various types of uses of the records.The authors conclude that there is a possibility of expanding the records continuum model by adding a fifth dimension: the use of archives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".