On Walden’s Fonds: Life on the Frontier of Monetary Appraisal in the Canadian Archival Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his article “Stretching the Dollar” (Archivaria 11, Winter 1980–81), David Walden called upon archivists to become informed about the process of assigning monetary value to cultural property lest the “schism between fair market value and research value” undermine the collection mandates of our cultural repositories. Of all the core processes involved in archival practice, monetary appraisal remains particularly shrouded in mystery. The essential problem of how to reconcile research value with fair market value – concepts that are in many ways opposed to each other – has remained unsolved since Walden broached the issue. In the last 40 years, few theories to promote fair and accurate monetary appraisal based on the primary research value of archives have emerged. We propose to reappraise Walden’s article in the context of the nearly synchronous parallel histories of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board and the National Archival Appraisal Board. How have the existence of these boards shaped the Canadian context for assigning “fair market value” to cultural property? Has the schism narrowed or widened? What, if any, new issues have emerged with regard to determining values for archival properties? We advocate for an increased role for archivists in the monetary appraisal of archival properties, and a broadening of the critical perspectives used to determine established values. We arrive at this reappraisal of the archival donation landscape by closely examining some of the common pitfalls of the appraisal methodologies and equivalency claims that are typically employed in determining value for tax credits in Canada. RÉSUMÉ Dans son article « Stretching the Dollar » (Archivaria 11, hiver 1980-81), David Walden encourageait les archivistes à se familiariser avec le processus d’évaluation monétaire de biens culturels, craignant que « le schisme entre la juste valeur marchande et la valeur de recherche » ne mine les mandats de collection des dépositaires du patrimoine culturel. De tous les processus fondamentaux de la pratique archivistique, l’évaluation monétaire demeure particulièrement enveloppée de mystère. Le problème central de la réconciliation de la valeur de recherche et de la juste valeur marchande – concepts antinomiques à plusieurs égards – demeure non résolu depuis que Walden a abordé le sujet. Au cours des quarante dernières années, peu de théories visant à faire la promotion d’une juste et équitable évaluation de la valeur monétaire en fonction de la valeur de recherche des archives ont émergé. Nous proposons de revoir l’article de Walden dans le contexte des histoires parallèles et presque synchrones de la Commission canadienne d’examen des exportations de biens culturels et du Conseil national d’évaluation des archives. Comment l’existence de ces institutions a-t-elle forgé le contexte canadien dans lequel est établie la « juste valeur marchande » des biens culturels? Le schisme s’est-il réduit ou agrandi? Le cas échéant, quels nouveaux enjeux sont apparus en regard de la détermination de la valeur des biens archivistiques? Nous plaidons en faveur d’un rôle accru des archivistes dans l’évaluation monétaire des biens d’archives, ainsi que d’un élargissement de la perspective critique utilisée pour déterminer la valeur établie. Nous arrivons à cette réévaluation de l’environnement des dons d’archives en nous penchant de plus près sur certains des écueils courants des méthodologies d’évaluation et des constats d’équivalence communément utilisée pour fixer la valeur des crédits d’impôt au Canada.
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 | 0.031 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".