Improving Access to the Records of Landed Estates: Balancing Archival and User Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. RÉSUMÉ Cet article est fondé sur les résultats d’une recherche doctorale qui a examiné et évalué les méthodologies de catalogage archivistique anciennes et courantes appliquées aux documents relatifs aux propriétés foncières 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 exploré l’opinion des utilisateurs par rapport à un échantillonnage d’instruments de recherche papier et numériques de divers niveaux de description et de divers degrés d’élaboration. Les résultats reflètent des points de vue des utilisateurs qui sont importants à la pratique professionnelle courante. Ils se situent entre une forte dépendance sur l’aide offerte par les archivistes et un manque de sensibilisation ou une utilisation peu fréquente des instruments de recherche numériques en ligne et du matériel connexe clés. Un constat tout aussi important est le désir des utilisateurs de pouvoir accéder aussi bien aux instruments de recherche papier qu’à ceux disponibles en format numérique, pour fins de recherche. Ils ont apporté des arguments convaincants pour la rétention des deux formats alors que les efforts professionnels se sont surtout concentrés 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 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 | 0.052 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".