Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 2010s, community archives have become an increasingly important part of archival thinking, especially in the English-speaking world. Often motivated by the failure of traditional institutions to accurately represent all of societys histories, these initiatives enable communities to document their own history and memory. They are also an opportunity for archivists to reflect critically on gaps in the archives, archival biases, and the role they play in these processes. Despite its importance, however, the concept has yet to be fully integrated into mainstream archival theory in French-speaking Quebec. Although many initiatives in Quebec could be identified as community archives, they often remain absent from disciplinary thinking. This invisibility is part of a broader misunderstanding of the Quebec archival landscape when it comes to non-public archives. According to one estimate, they account for over 90% of the provinces archival centers and services, yet they remain little studied or defined. Based on these discrepancies between different archival realities, this article raises the question of defining community archives, as well as inviting us to explore the Quebec archival landscape through various examples.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".