Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word love is not used very often in archival scholarship or in archival practice. Love is also easy to dismiss as a subject of serious inquiry. This article takes seriously the role of love in archives, engaging with ideas from critical and feminist love studies, where love is understood as a creative and productive force that can be used to bring about transformative change. Drawing on research about grieving and recordkeeping, with both bereaved records creators and practising archivists, and grounded in the expanding critical literature on trauma-informed archival praxis and affect and emotions in archival work, this article considers how the discourse of love is taking shape in archival studies and why any discussion about love in archives has to be grounded in a politics of structural care. Thinking with Tamarin Norwood’s notion of institutional love, the article argues for a kind of love that is research- and experience-led and embedded in institutions, policies, procedures, and training.
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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".