A organização do conhecimento arquivístico: perspectivas de renovação a partir das abordagens científicas canadenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late twentieth century, the impact of new forms of document production as well as the hugh growth of information technologies, have led the information professionals to rethink the traditional archival concepts and principles expressed in old Archival Science manuals. In this context, it highlights the archival scientific Canadian environment which gave the country the status of fertile ground for the discussions on Archivistics. It led to the “reshaping” of traditional archival principles and, as a consequence, (re)defined concepts, methods and criteria for the creation, maintenance and use of documents in electronic and traditional environments. It was especially by the 80’s that a new paradigm was enunciated in the area, and from it, three approaches have emerged: Integrated Archival Science, enunciated by the Québec group; Functional Archival Science or Postmodern Archival Science, enunciated by Terry Cook and; Contemporary Diplomatics, first enunciated in Italy by Paola Carucci and deeply developed and reformulated in North America by Luciana Duranti. Considering such scientific landscape, this paper aims to establish a comparative discussion among the epistemological foundations of these three Canadian Archival approaches as a contribution to emergent perspectives to build a contemporary archival discipline which can be able to face the new organic information processes of creation, organization and use.
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 | 0.064 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.172 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.052 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 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".