Advice to Authors of Submissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archivaria, the journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA), is devoted to the scholarly investigation of archives in Canada and internationally.Published twice yearly in both print and electronic formats, the journal aims to be a means of communication among archivists, and between archivists, users of archives, and others interested in archives and archival practice.Since 1975, the journal has explored a range of topics, including theoretical problems in archival studies; practical solutions; new and related fields of history and related disciplines; changing forms and types of documentation; technological developments in information creation and use; legal and ethical concerns; the history of archives; the activities of individual archivists; trends in archival development; changing recordkeeping practices over time; the relationship of archivists to other information management professionals; and much else.All members of the ACA receive Archivaria as part of their membership dues.Subscriptions are also available, and reprints of published articles and copies of back issues can be ordered individually.For membership and subscription information, go to www.archivists.ca. A+ RatingIn 2010, Archivaria's excellence was recognized by the Australian Research Council, which rigorously evaluates peer-reviewed journals across the academic disciplines in order to identify the best journals for disseminating excellent research.Archivaria was given the highest possible rating: A+.Such rankings are a critical indicator for researchers and professionals wishing to publish their work in high-quality journals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".