MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W764131929

A PIM Perspective: Leveraging Personal Information Management Research in the Archiving of Personal Digital Records

2013· article· en· W764131929 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jordan Bass

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Personal information managementMediationScholarshipPersonally identifiable informationLibrary sciencePolitical scienceHumanitiesInformation systemComputer scienceHistoryArtManagement information systemsLawVisual arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article se penche sur l'environnement numérique personnel -trop souvent simplifié à l'extrême -afin de faire ressortir les nombreuses nuances qui existent dans le contexte de création des documents et de leur utilisation par des individus à l'ère du numérique.Il explore spécifiquement les stratégies de gestion de documents numériques personnels, les décisions d'évaluation et les désignations de valeur, ainsi que les pratiques de conservation numérique, du point de vue des études en gestionnaires d'informations personnelles (« Personal Information Management »), à partir d'une recension des écrits publiés hors des revues et monographies archivistiques traditionnelles.En examinant comment les gens créent, rassemblent, classent, conservent et (ré-)accèdent à l'information numérique, la recherche en gestionnaires d'informations personnelles sert de complément à nos connaissances actuelles sur les documents numériques personnels et révèle de nouvelles informations au sujet de ce matériel qui n'ont pas encore paru dans les écrits en archivistique.Ce texte suggère qu'une vraie compréhension des processus de médiation des documents d'archives, qui s'effectue dans l'environnement des archives numériques personnelles bien avant le versement à un centre d'archives, fait partie de la découverte et de l'exploitation de l'information nécessaire au sujet de sa provenance.ABSTRACT This paper investigates the often oversimplified personal digital archiving environment to expose the many nuances in the context of the creation and use of records by individuals in the digital era.It specifically examines personal digital recordkeeping strategies, appraisal decisions, and identifications of value, as well as digital preservation practices from the perspective of Personal Information Management (PIM) studies through a review of pertinent literature published outside traditional archival journals and monographs.Through explorations of how people create, collect, organize, maintain, and (re)access digital information, PIM research complements our existing knowledge about personal digital records and reveals addi-This article was awarded the first Gordon Dodds Prize, which recognizes superior research and writing on an archival topic by a student enrolled in a master's level archival studies program at a Canadian university.Instituted in 20, the award honours Gordon Dodds (94-200), who was the first president of the ACA and Archivaria's longest-serving general editor. Archivaria 75Archivaria, The Journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists -All rights reserved tional information about these materials heretofore undisclosed by archival scholarship.This paper suggests that a genuine understanding of the processes of records mediation occurring in the precustodial environment of personal digital archives is integral to the discovery and exploitation of their requisite provenancial information.The personal archive of a living person is, of course, a dynamic entity: a "living archive" with new objects being created, others being acquired, amended, and discarded.2 Inscribers and pre-archival custodians of records document some things and not others (that is an appraisal decision of sorts) and they choose to destroy certain records, without knowledge of archives, or offer only certain records to archives, holding back others for other times.3 2 Jeremy Leighton John, Ian Rowlands, Peter Williams, and Katrina Dean, "Digital Lives: Personal Digital Archives for the 2st Century -An Initial Synthesis, Beta version 0.2" (March 200), 9, http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/files/digital-lives-synthesis02-.pdf(accessed 4 June 200).Jeremy Leighton John is the principal investigator of the Digital Lives Research Project and curator of eMANUSCRIPTS

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0220.021
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivariaSame topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207