MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W913232600

Improving Access to the Records of Landed Estates: Balancing Archival and User Perspectives

2013· article· en· W913232600 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julie Mathias

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary sciencePolitical scienceArchival scienceHumanitiesArtComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper draws on the findings of doctoral research that surveyed and evaluated from the perspective of the user past and current archival cataloguing methodologies for the records of longlasting landed estates in the UK. It reports on the findings of focus groups that explored users’ opinions of a sample set of descriptive paper and electronic finding aids of various depths and levels. The results reflect user views that are important to current professional practice. These range from heavy reliance on assistance from archivists to lack of awareness or very limited use of key online archival finding aids and related resources. Just as important was the strong desire for access to paper finding aids as well as electronic ones for research purposes. Convincing arguments were made for retaining both formats at a time when professional efforts have focused more on online delivery. RESUME Cet article est fonde sur les resultats d’une recherche doctorale qui a examine et evalue les methodologies de catalogage archivistique anciennes et courantes appliquees aux documents relatifs aux proprietes foncieres de longue date en Grande-Bretagne, du point de vue des utilisateurs de ces documents d’archives. Il rapporte les conclusions de panels qui ont explore l’opinion des utilisateurs par rapport a un echantillonnage d’instruments de recherche papier et numeriques de divers niveaux de description et de divers degres d’elaboration. Les resultats refletent des points de vue des utilisateurs qui sont importants a la pratique professionnelle courante. Ils se situent entre une forte dependance sur l’aide offerte par les archivistes et un manque de sensibilisation ou une utilisation peu frequente des instruments de recherche numeriques en ligne et du materiel connexe cles. Un constat tout aussi important est le desir des utilisateurs de pouvoir acceder aussi bien aux instruments de recherche papier qu’a ceux disponibles en format numerique, pour fins de recherche. Ils ont apporte des arguments convaincants pour la retention des deux formats alors que les efforts professionnels se sont surtout concentres sur la distribution en ligne.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivariaSame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207