FOX and WILKERSON, Introduction to Archival Organization and Description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archivaria 55 frustrating for someone who is not familiar with all the tag names, hence the inclusion of appendix D, "Index by Element Name," which serves to crossreference the element names to their respective, sometimes cryptic, tags.Three other appendices are included to round out the text.The first appendix documents three cross-reference matrices to facilitate comparisons of EAD elements with ISAD(G) and MARC2 1 elements.It is unfortunate that the RAD 2 /EAD matrix developed by the Data Structure Standards Sub-Committee of the Canadian Committee on Archival Description several years ago was not included in some form.Appendix B, "Deprecated and Obsolete Elements and Attributes," documents elements and attributes that are either no longer supported, or are in the process of being phased out.Appendix C, "Encoded Examples," provides examples of descriptions encoded in EAD Version 1.0 and converted to EAD 2002.For some reason, the authors chose to omit two sections pertaining to the design principles used to develop EAD, and an overview of the EAD structure that were included in the manual for Version 1.0.This seems strange given that some institutions will begin using EAD Version 2002 directly, and their users would have benefited from this information.In any case, this is not a manual that was meant to be used in isolation, and users would be welladvised to acquire EAD Application Guidelines as a companion publication, in addition to familiarizing themselves with basic SGML and XML concepts.These minor shortcomings aside, this manual should be considered a required text for any institution that is using or considering using EAD as the encoding standard for their finding aids.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".