A representação da informação Arquivística: Uma Análise do discurso teórico e institucional a partir dos contextos Espanhol, Canadense e Brasileiro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Discourse Analysis is a discipline that has theoretical and methodological characteristics that may contribute to the growth of Archival Science theory, because, is through the statements game permeate by ideological positions placed on the social-historical process, the text (oral and written) is produced, ie, the Archival Science related to discursive and ideological formations that are often suppressed in their discursive instances. The problem sets in a systematic search and identify the differences and similarities between archival institutional practice and theory on the present time. In this sense, we seek to characterize as the archival discourse is constructed and behaves in academic and institutional professional spheres in contemporary society. By analyzing the concepts Archival Representation and description today by three streams that were selected (Brazilian, Canadian and Spanish) at the level of his theory, at the academic level and how they are worked in archival institutions these countries. Thus, we objectives through the theoretical and methodological framework of discourse analysis to understand how they behave and build and how these notions are used in theory and practice of the Archival Science seeking a conceptual and discursive construction for the discipline. This analysis takes place from the leading theorists of these currents and archival institutions most important of these countries in the case, the National Archives. We find some possible discursive formations in Archival Science one related to traditionalism and another related to reformism was found. We conclude that the Archival Science has a complex possess of discursive formations built over its institutional and theoretical history
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 | 0.031 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".