Uma aproximação entre arquivologia e ciéncia da informação: o uso dos conceitos de informação organica e informação arqiovística
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It presents a study on the interdisciplinary relationships established between Archival Science and Information Science, based on the prevalence of a common element in both fields of knowledge: the information recorded, delimited within the scope of Archival Science by the concept organic information, also identified as archival information. It is a quantitativequalitative, descriptive research using the content analysis method\nand as a process of data collection and bibliographic research in two sources: for the construction of the theoretical reference on the terms studied, we used the definitions of classic authors of Information Science and, specifically for the treatment of the definition of organic information, by authors of the new Canadian Archival Science. Subsequently, the articles indexed in the Information Science Periodicals Database (BRAPCI) were listed, using the concepts studied in order to identify their incorporation on the conceptual framework of the area. As a result, we present a survey of the titles identified\nwith the use of both concepts.
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 | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".