CCPERB Perturbed: Fair Market Value in the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board’s 2020 Guide for Monetary Appraisals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in how the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board (CCPERB) interprets "fair market value" have undermined archives' ability to acquire certified cultural property.In November , CCPERB approved the revised Guide for Monetary Appraisals (the Guide) that changed the methodology used to justify the appraised fair market value of archival fonds.CCPERB's new approach to monetary appraisal is not in keeping with the intent and spirit of the Canadian cultural property program established years ago, and it has already had a deleterious effect on archives' ability to preserve important collections. BackgroundThe Canadian cultural property program has played an important role in preserving Canada's documentary heritage.In , Canada passed a comprehensive piece of legislation, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act (CPEIA), 1 This communication examines the recently released Guide for Monetary Appraisals (November 2020), published
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 | 0.073 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.016 |
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".