Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Always an Adventure: An Autobiography Mary-Ellen Kelm Always an Adventure: An Autobiography. Hugh Dempsey. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2011. Pp. 414, $34.95 It is the era of thoughtful self-examination as baby boomers (and those slightly older) look back on their lives. Geoff Eley’s A Crooked Line and this journal’s new series, ‘A Life in History,’ suggest a certain taste these days for scholarly self-reflection. Hugh Dempsey’s autobiography Always an Adventure lacks critical self-examination but it offers insights into museum and archival practice in the era of professionalization, the politics of cross-cultural organizing in the decades of official multiculturalism and assimilationist Indian policy, and the singular perspectives of a man who was involved in many of the important cultural moments of mid-twentieth-century Western Canada. This is a highly personal account. Dempsey’s opinions, empathies, and enmities are clear and unabashed. His relationships with First Nations of southern Alberta and his love of early settler history infuse this book, as it did his commitment to the preservation of Alberta’s past during his tenure at Calgary’s Glenbow Institute. Yet at the same time, he is dismissive of First Nations who press, in his view, less than fully justified claims, and he has little time for non-Natives who interfere with or romanticize First Nations. His critical gaze focuses mainly on individuals, while the larger structural contexts that shaped his perspectives and those around him are only ever implied. As a teenager watching Edmonton develop as a gateway to the resource-rich north and later, on the rural beat writing for the Edmonton Bulletin, Dempsey developed an affinity for rural people, local lore, and particularly history. During his time with the Bulletin, he met John Laurie and covered the work of the Indian Association of Alberta (iaa), where he encountered James Gladstone and his daughter Pauline. All that was to be significant about Dempsey’s life was established in these years. Through the Indian Association, his marriage to Pauline, and his friendship with his senator father-in-law, doors opened for Dempsey in Aboriginal homes across southern Alberta – crucial relationships to his work for the Glenbow. Dempsey’s account of the Glenbow’s early years focuses on his own role collecting documents and artifacts and on the complicated relations between the Glenbow’s founder, Eric Harvie, its governing bodies, and staff. Founded in 1954 and financed by oil profits, the Glenbow Institute reflected Harvie’s interest in Western Canadian history. Dempsey was the institute’s first archivist. He was mostly self-taught, attending training courses for historical administrators [End Page 499] when they were available, but learning principally by observing the archival practices of other institutions. Though Harvie set the larger collection policy, Dempsey was given a free hand in collecting documents, photographs, and Aboriginal artifacts, and so it is to Dempsey that historians of Western Canada must give credit for the important collections held by the Glenbow today. Still, despite his energy and wisdom, Dempsey’s tenure at the Glenbow was marred by uncertainty borne of internal conflicts within the institute and between it and the Alberta government. Not all of Glenbow’s conflicts were managerial, however. Dempsey observed at close range one of museology’s most significant controversies of the late twentieth century. The Spirit Sings exhibit was organized by the Glenbow to coincide with the Calgary Olympics in 1988. It was intended to be a kind of ‘homecoming’ for a selection of the many Aboriginal artifacts from southern Alberta that had found themselves in museum collections in Europe and the United States. But present-day Aboriginal politics saw the event and its organizer in quite a different way. The Lubicon Cree had been pressing the Alberta and federal governments for a treaty to recognize their sovereignty over unceded lands and their right to a say in oil and gas exploration in their region. First, the Lubicon called for a boycott of the Olympics, but when the Glenbow received funding from Shell Oil for the exhibit, the Lubicon shifted their focus to the Glenbow and the Spirit Sings exhibit. Many important and high-profile museums acquiesced...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».