Visitors’ Voices: Lessons from Conversations in the Royal Ontario Museum’s Gallery of Canada: First Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several days before Christmas 2005, the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) held a “members only” opening for their new First Peoples gallery. Attending this occasion with one of the curators, I had the unique opportunity to gain an inside view of the curatorial strategies behind the exhibit, while simultaneously positioned to overhear the uncensored remarks of visitors as they first encountered the show. This circumstance stimulated dialogue on such central issues as redefining the “culture area” concept, overcoming the “disappearing Indian” stereotype and revisiting the pros and cons of dioramas, as well as the constraints of finance-minded administrators and unreliable professional design teams. Reflection on these issues draws attention to the importance of reaching children through exhibits and of establishing comparative frameworks for the postmodern narratives of contemporary exhibits. This article uses visitors’ comments as a springboard for a discussion of the above issues. Resume Quelques jours avant Noel 2005, le Musee royal de l’Ontario organisa l’inauguration, « reservee aux membres », de la toute nouvelle galerie des Premieres nations. Assistant a cet evenement en compagnie de l’un des conservateurs, j’ai eu l’opportunite unique de voir de l’interieur les strategies de conservation a l’arriere-plan de l’exposition, tout en etant en meme temps en bonne position pour entendre les remarques non censurees des visiteurs qui regardaient cette exposition pour la premiere fois. Cette circonstance a suscite le dialogue sur des questions de fond telles que la redefinition du concept « d’aire culturelle », comment surmonter le stereotype de « l’Indien en voie de disparition » ou la reevaluation des avantages et des inconvenients des dioramas, autant que sur les contraintes generees par des administrateurs soucieux des finances et les equipes de designers professionnels pas toujours fiables. La reflexion sur ces questions attire l’attention sur l’importance d’atteindre le public des enfants au moyen de ces expositions et d’elaborer des cadres comparatifs pour les recits postmodernes des expositions contemporaines. Cet article utilise les commentaires des visiteurs comme point de depart de la discussion de ces questions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.062 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".