“It’s Not the Materials Themselves, It’s the Attitude of the Donors”: The Role of Community Accountability in the Sustainability of Queer Archives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on findings from semi-structured interviews with 25 archivists and curators who work with LGBTQIA+-related collections and materials about the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Specifically, it reports on how these practitioners define and engage with ethical practices, access-based obligations, and community relations in creating and sustaining their archives. The article focuses on how participants, including practitioners from various community and institutional archives of varying size and scope across the United States, understood community accountability within their work. This emphasis on community accountability necessitated that practitioners reframe archival ethics, reconsider subjective and embodied collection and curation work, and prioritize community well-being over quantitative collection building. In response to these findings, the article identifies theoretical and practical implications for queer archives related to methods of archival production, approaches to community outreach and engagement, and the intersecting impact of these implications and approaches on questions of archival sustainability for queer and other historically marginalized histories.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".