Uma aproximação entre arquivologia e ciéncia da informação: o uso dos conceitos de informação organica e informação arqiovística
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it