Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 969, l'Universit Queen's Kingston, en Ontario, fit l'achat d'un premier ensemble de documents d'Al Purdy, l'une des figures littraires canadiennes les plus importantes du vingtime sicle.Au cours des cinq dcennies et onze versements qui ont suivi, un nombre d'archivistes ont laiss leur marque sur l'organisation de ces documents.Le rsultat de cette influence varie sur le classement de ce fonds d'archives est une suite disperse de sries incompatibles.Cette tude de cas examine les facteurs qui ont influenc l'application pratique des thories sur le classement dans une institution, les archives de l'Universit Queen's, partir de la perspective d'un archiviste qui doit naviguer travers les diffrents contextes de classement au cours de l'histoire de l'acquisition de ce fonds d'archives. partir des entrevues avec le donateur et avec d'anciens archivistes qui ont organis des versements spcifiques au fonds Al Purdy, et aussi partir d'une recherche sur les pratiques institutionnelles et la formation des archivistes de l'Universit Queen's, cet article examine le milieu dans lequel les sries et sous-sries d'un fonds d'archives se sont tendues et ont t modifies.Cet article examine aussi comment des traditions de classement sont cres et perptues avec le temps, et comment la poursuite peu judicieuse de l'ordre d'origine pour un fonds peut perptuer des constructions hypothtiques errones.ABSTRACT In 969, Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, purchased the first set of papers from Al Purdy, one of Canada's foremost literary figures of the twentieth century.Over five decades and eleven accruals, a number of archivists have left their signature on the organization of these papers.This varied influence on the arrangement of the fonds has resulted in a scattered sequence of incompatible series.This case study examines the factors that influenced the practical application of arrangement theories in one institution, Queen's University Archives, from the perspective of an archivist having to navigate different contexts of arrangement
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it