MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161983304 · doi:10.82308/32973

The pragmatic archivist: An exploration of information management in K-12 independent schools

2024· dissertation· en· W7161983304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Morgannis Graham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecords managementInformation managementGroup information managementPersonal information managementInformation governanceData collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The archival records of primary and secondary schools are valuable sources of information that could support their institutions’ administrative and curricular activities, as well as the collective memory and identities of their community members, but only when they are captured, made accessible, and preserved. As archival management is perceived as extraneous to a school’s core function of educating students, recordkeeping is not always prioritized. This disregard can lead to ad-hoc, decentralized, or non-existent information management strategies, which in turn leads to knowledge not being shared or captured, and records not being preserved. Both the school and its archive suffer. This research explored the nature and purpose of information and records within K-12 independent schools and established connections between different organizational variables and information management.Research is sparse on the management of primary and secondary school archives, and even less touches on independent schools specifically. The primary objective of this research was to examine the state of information management in K-12 independent schools in Quebec, Canada from an archival perspective. It explored the different types of records that are created or acquired by K-12 school archives (as well as those that are not), the information management needs of these schools, the organizational variables that could be important regarding information management in schools, and the role of school archivists.This was a case study of a single school, which included three different data collection methods: a document analysis to understand how the school’s records were managed; interviews with administrators to learn about the records they create and information they need; and a faculty survey to see how their informational practices and requirements compared with the administrative staff. The case study was followed by interviews with archivists from similar schools to gather their perspectives as well as to see if any of the themes that had been uncovered would be present in other institutions.The data clearly demonstrated that, in the case study school, information management was not always prioritized, and as such, administrative staff, teaching faculty, and the school’s archival collection suffered. Organizational information tended to be shared most effectively between small departments and close colleagues without the benefit of strong centralized information management policies and procedures. The school archivists interviewed tended to be under-resourced, under-supported, and inundated by the magnitude and scope of their responsibilities. The management of the school’s digital records was specifically an area of concern. A functional analysis was completed that detailed many of the different records that independent K-12 schools create or acquire and should be retained by their archive. It also included an examination of some of the appraisal and accession, use and access, and management and preservation considerations that should be addressed. Ten ‘moments of failure’ were then identified that could lead to gaps in a school’s archive. This was followed by an examination of some of the information management needs of a K-12 independent school, which led to an analysis of six organizational variables that could be important regarding information management programs in schools. Finally, it argued that, especially as business records have embraced the digital, the role and positioning of school archivist must be revisited to remain relevant and effective

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0400.078
Scholarly communication0.0270.011
Open science0.0050.013
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207