Gains:
- Ability to produce drafts of finding aid (description tool), scope-content note and layout sections with artificial intelligence
- Ability to understand the hallucinatory risk of biographical/institutional history and base this section only on verified sources
- Ability to enable artificial intelligence to direct the researcher to the source instead of giving facts directly in the reference service
An archive is not just responsible for preserving documents; is also responsible for making them accessible to the researcher. There are two primary means of this access: description tools that introduce the collection (finding aid — a guiding document that defines the content, organization and scope of an archival collection) and a reference service that directly assists researchers. Both require great effort: writing a guide to a collection takes weeks, and answering researcher questions throughout the day consumes time. Moreover, these two works are the "face" of the archive; A researcher's first contact with the collection is often through the guide and information desk, so an error here is directly reflected in the reliability of the archive.
AI is a powerful aid in drafting description tools and supporting reference service. In this unit, we will learn how to draft a collection guide (finding aid), write scope and content descriptions, assist with researcher questions, and see why accuracy is non-negotiable in these services.
Description tools: map of the collection
A description tool allows a researcher to ask “what is in this collection that works for me?” It allows you to answer the question. Typically includes:
- General description: Name, scope, date range, size of the collection.
- Biographical/institutional history: Brief history of the person or institution that produced the documents.
- Scope and content note: Explanation of what kind of documents and on what subjects are in the collection.
- Arrangement: How documents are grouped (series, subseries).
- Inventory: Detailed list at box/file level.
These documents are written in accordance with standards (for example, ISAD(G) or EAD - Encoded Archival Description, the digital coding standard for archive guides). AI can produce outlines of these sections from raw inventory and document summaries; but every fact (history, person, institution history) must be verified.
Another value of description tools is that they can be written at different levels of detail. Sometimes there is not enough time or resources to describe thousands of boxes of an archive at the document level; In this case, a multilevel description is made: first a general description at the fund level, then the series, then whenever possible the file level. AI is particularly useful for drafting the top-level overall scope note from lower-level case summaries; It makes a summary from the mass to the whole. But each layer of this summary must be consistent with the actual documents at the bottom layer; The AI should not make up a scope claim that is not in the top-level collection.
Caution: The biographical/institutional history section is where the hallucination most often creeps in. AI can write a fluent history about a person or institution from “common knowledge” while adding non-existent events, false dates, and made-up titles. This section should be based on verified sources only.
Workflow: step by step
1. Collect raw material. Inventory, document summaries, box lists, existing notes if any.
2. Set the standard. According to which description standard will it be written (ISAD(G)/EAD)?
3. Produce a chapter-by-chapter draft. Have AI draft sections such as scope and content note and layout description from raw material.
4. Verify the facts. Especially in the history section, check each date, name and event with independent sources.
5. Check access restrictions. Are there confidential/copyright restricted documents in the collection? These should be stated in the guide.
6. Expert approval. The final guide undergoes archivist approval.
Reference service: assistance to the researcher
In the reference service, AI helps in two ways: (1) by making sense of the researcher's question and suggesting which collections to look at, and (2) by drafting answers to frequently asked questions. But there is a critical limit here: AI should not give the researcher a direct "fact" answer, but should direct him to the source. Instead of saying "This date is this", it should say "You can find this information from such and such documents in this collection". Because the direct factual answer given by the AI may be fabricated and the researcher may mistake it for the source.
Reference task
Appropriate role of AI
objectionable use
Making sense of the question
Suggest clarifying questions
—
Collection routing
"Look there" suggestion
Saying "The answer is"
FAQ draft
Draft from verified information
fake answer
Source list
Search suggestion in the catalog
Giving a made-up reference
question of fact
Redirect to source
Direct fact response
three mini cases
Case 1 — The draft guidance reduced 4 weeks to 1 week. An archive was preparing a finding aid for a collection of 120 boxes. Box lists and file summaries were given to AI; YZ produced the draft of the scope-content note and layout sections. The archivist verified and organized the facts in a week; by traditional method this estimate was one month. But 3 dates and 2 titles in the biographical history section were wrong; Fixed in verification.
Case 2 — Fictitious institutional history. An intern had the AI write the history of an institution and put it directly into the directory. YZ gave the wrong date of establishment of the institution and mentioned a merger that did not exist. A researcher noticed and reported the error; The guide was corrected, but the reliability of the archive was damaged. Lesson: history section will not be published without verification.
Case 3 — Right guidance, wrong fact. A researcher asked for a date. An AI-based assistant gave a direct date (made up). The researcher would use this as a source; The senior archivist intervened and said, "AI does not give facts, it directs you to the collection" and made him look at the real document; history was different. Lesson: in the reference service, AI directs, not gives facts.
Four copyable templates
1) Draft scope and content note:
BASED ON the box/file lists and document summaries below, write a draft "scope and content note" for a collection. Use only what is included in the material provided; ADD a topic, date, or person that is not in the collection. Mark any fact that you are unsure of [needs verification]. Material: [here]
2) Biographical/institutional history (controlled):
Below are VERIFIED notes about [person/organization]. Write a brief history outline based ONLY these notes. DO NOT ADD any dates, events, or titles that are not in the notes; Don't add general "knowledge" information. Leave the spaces [no information]. Notes: [here]
3) Researcher guidance:
A researcher's question: [question]. DO NOT give a DIRECT factual answer to this question. Instead: (1) suggest 1-2 questions that will clarify the question, (2) tell him what TYPE of collection/document he should look at, (3) suggest what terms he might search in the catalog. Don't make a made-up reference.
4) FAQ answer draft:
Below are VERIFIED fact sheets from our archive. Based on these notes, draft an answer to the following frequently asked question: [question].Adding information not in the notes; [check]mark where you are not sure. At the end of the answer, direct the researcher to the relevant collection. Notes: [here]
Weak prompt / Strong prompt
Weak:
Write a comprehensive finding aid for this collection, including history.
“Extensive” and “including history” push the AI to go beyond the given material and add made-up information about the institution/person.
Strong:
Write the outline of the finding aid BASED on the following box lists and verified history notes: scope-content and layout sections. Do not include any facts not included in the given material; Use only verified notes in the history, leave blanks [no information]. Mark every questionable fact [needs verification]. Material: [here]
The difference: adherence to the given material, prohibition of fabrication, preservation of gaps and verification marks make the guide reliable.
Common mistakes
- Leaving the history to the "common knowledge" of the AI. This part is the most susceptible to hallucination; should be based only on verified notes.
- Giving direct facts in the reference. AI should guide the researcher, not replace the source.
- Bypassing access restrictions. Confidentiality/copyright restricted documents should be marked in the directory.
- Suggesting a made-up reference. Any unverified reference in the catalog will not be given to the researcher.
- Publishing the draft without approval. The final guide is approved by the archivist.
In summary
Archive access and reference service is a fruitful area where AI is accelerating the drafting of description tools and supporting researcher guidance. But the biographical/institutional history is the point of penetration of the hallucination, and in the reference service, AI should not give facts, but direct to the source. Base the guide only on authenticated material, preserve gaps, mark access restrictions, and leave final approval to the archivist. AI drafts a map of the collection; The archive is responsible for the accuracy of that map.
Application task
Take a box/file list of a collection (real or sample) and ask the AI for an outline with the “scope and content note outline” template; Check whether it goes beyond the given material. Then run the “biographical history” template for a person/organization with only verified notes and observe if the AI tries to fit in the gaps. Finally, process a researcher question with the “researcher orientation” template.
checklist
- [ ] I have based the guide only on the given/verified material.
- [ ] I have independently verified every date and name in the history.
- [ ] I marked the access restrictions (privacy/copyright) in the guide.
- [ ] Instead of giving facts in the reference, I directed you to the source.
- [ ] I submitted the final guide to the archivist's approval.