Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian archives are the foundation of Canadian studies, and the development of Canadian studies will depend in large measure upon the satisfactory development of Canadian archival resources.1 This forthright assertion of the essential value of the archival record remains as clear today as when it was written by T.H.B. Symons in 1975.The title of his influential report on Canadian studies provided the best expression of the ultimate goal of the archival endeavour: To Know Ourselves.It gave inspiration and context for the 1980 Report on Canadian Archives.Dr. Symons readily accepted our invitation to attend the Canadian Archives Summit as its honorary chair, and his presence symbolized the continuity of our challenge.The Canadian Archives Summit was organized by the Association of Canadian Archivists, L'Association des archivistes du Québec, and the Canadian Council of Archives as a unique event to stimulate creative thinking and new approaches to archival services.While focused on "a new blueprint" for the archival system, the summit was intended to inform and engage the two expert panels that were in the midst of their work.Library and Archives Canada sponsored a broad-ranging study through the Council of Canadian Academies, addressing the role of memory institutions in a mobile, digital society.The emphasis in the questions posed was on social media but also included the larger issues of recordkeeping and appraisal.The wording of the questions seemed hesitant, with libraries, archives, and museums seen as reacting to the challenges of changing communication, and the final question was ominous: "How can memory institutions remain relevant as a trusted source of continuing information?"At the same time in 2013, the Royal Society of Canada, one of the member academies of the Council, launched its own expert panel, with a 1 Thomas H.B.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.020 |
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".