Досвід Канади щодо грошової оцінки архівних документів: характеристика джерел дослідження та основні концепції
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The paper aims to identify the main sources of information on the monetary appraisal of archival documents and to analyse the main conceptual principles underlying this process. Methods. The following methods were used in the course of the research: historical source analysis, historical comparison, and conceptual analysis. Results. The authors characterised the main sources of information on the valuation of archival documents, in particular, the websites of the National Archival Appraisal Board, Library and Archives of Canada, the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, the Antiquarian Booksellers’ Association of America, proceedings of the 2007 conference in Ottawa “The Future of Monetary Valuation in Canada”, and forum reports (2022) on the topic “Much More Than Money”. The main conceptual principles used by archivists and other experts in determining the monetary value of documents are identified. Conclusions. The sources of information on the appraisal of archival artefacts in Canada are quite representative and provide an overall picture of the organisation of these processes and the results of their implementation. The criteria for the appraisal of archival documents can be applied to the valuation and purchase of library collections and individual book artefacts. Despite differences in the organisation of the appraisal process, the conceptual approaches to the process itself in Canada and Ukraine are almost identical. However, the experience of Canadian archivists is valuable and requires in-depth study, especially in the areas of monetary valuation of audiovisual documents and documents in electronic form.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".