Immigrant Communities, Cultural Institutions and Political Space The Success of the Immigration Museum in Melbourne, Australia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a country, Australia is unique in that it is the smallest continent of the world. It involves a territory that is isolated in the Asia Pacific and belongs to the Commonwealth (1) as a former British settlement colony. This dual attribute, both geographical and political, has been consequential for the role played by immigration in Australia's and cultural development with its specific colonial history. It is therefore not surprising that one of the oldest museums dedicated to immigration is the Immigration Museum in Melbourne, located in the State of Victoria. This museum was created with the initiative of the State Government of Victoria, who in the 1980s brought together actors to found a museum of immigration, and took the decision to set up a special section dedicated to immigration, one that remains attached to the National Museum of Victoria. (2) The aim of this paper is to explore the role of the museum of immigration in a context of multicultural policy and intercommunity dialogue, and present the results of investigations carried out on the public museum between November 2009 and February 2010. I. THE AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM CONTEXT The Immigration Museum in Melbourne opened in 1998 in the former customs office (3), a symbolic place of immigration control and registration of new arrivals. This inauguration endorsed a significant socio-cultural dimension in a state that is one of the most culturally diverse in Australia. Almost a quarter of its population is foreign born, and 43.5% of the people, when they do not themselves come from abroad, have at least one parent who was not born in the Australian soil. Population comes from more than 200 different countries, speaks over 180 languages or dialects and joins more than 110 religious faiths. (4) Australia, therefore, brings together in the same area a group of multiethnic and multicultural communities, making migration a situation of great complexity. Yet, even though Australia now practices a multicultural policy, it has been in place only since 1972 (5) when it came about as a result of repealing an immigration policy based on criteria of racial discrimination and exclusion. Indeed, Terra Australis (6), which was primarily a penitentiary destination (7), quickly became an extra British colony in the French and British conquest. Great Britain and Ireland were the two main sources of settlement for over a century and a half, immigration policy having then focused on creating an ideal society homogeneous and white (8). Subsequently, other European countries have fueled settlement migration, the criteria for entry to the territory being still based on the ethnicity of immigrants, according to White Policy (9). Practiced today, such a policy would lead to disapproval and certainly even indignation. (10) It is precisely international opinion, new university exchanges, and the geographical reality that led Australia to revise its immigration policy in a progressive manner. When the Labor Party (11) won the elections in 1972, it repealed the White Policy and implemented a policy modeled on diversity (12), but mostly and implicitly allowed the recognition of the rights for Aboriginal people (13). Multiculturalism is a policy that applies not only to immigration but also to all Australians. Beyond the cultural and ethnic diversity of Australia, it is a set of policy measures that respond to the cultural variety of Australian society. (14) The creation of the Immigration Museum contributes to the implementation of a multicultural policy (15). The musealization of immigration allows the identification of new areas of discussion of immigration issues, and presents the diversity of items offered or loaned by immigrants to tell their stories. The museum becomes a social actor embedded in a territory with legitimacy and guaranteeing the broadcast content and a spatial-temporal framework of citizenship. …
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it