MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Museums, Human Rights, and Universalism Reconsidered

2015· other· en· W1508506978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer H. Barrett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsUniversalismDeclarationPolitical scienceLinguistic rightsInternational human rights lawConscienceLawSociologyRight to propertyEnvironmental ethicsPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Human rights in the museum context draw on the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and on the more recent (1948) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Central to these declarations is a notion of the universal, which is potentially in tension with critiques of universalism in the museum sector. The chapter examines how human rights are situated in the history of the public museum, particularly in the so‐called universal museum and the Declaration of Universal Museums from 2002. It traces the emergence of museums that address atrocities, such as holocaust museums (1980s) and museums as sites of conscience (1990s), before considering the more recent museums and alliances such as the Federation of International Human Rights Museums (FIHRM) which focus on human rights and engage in activism and advocacy on both local and international scales. The chapter highlights tensions between notions of universalism and human rights discourses through vignettes of the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool and the Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. In doing so, it addresses the crucial issue of how these tensions might contribute to change in museums in the twenty‐first century.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.067
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207