The Genre of Love-Me Binders US Military Veterans Documenting Their Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archivaria, the journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists, has the following policy related to authors depositing their published articles in institutional repositories: \n \n"Authors of manuscripts accepted for publication retain copyright in their work. They are required to sign the Agreement on Authors' Rights and Responsibilities that permits Archivaria to publish and disseminate the work in print and electronically. In the same agreement, authors are required to confirm that "the material submitted for publication in Archivaria, both in its paper and electronic versions, including reproductions of other works (e.g. photographs, maps, etc.) does not infringe upon any existing copyright." Authors of manuscripts accepted for publication retain copyright in their work and are able to publish their articles in institutional repositories or elsewhere as long as the piece is posted after its original appearance on archivaria.ca. Any reproduction within one year following the date of this agreement requires the permission of the General Editor."
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.010 |
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".