MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975858319 · doi:10.1353/utq.0.0157

'Pictures Bring Us Messages' / Sinaakssiiksi aohtsimaahpihkookiyaawa: Photographs and Histories from the Kainai Nation (review)

2008· article· en· W1975858319 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Judith Nasby

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeremonyIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)RomanceHistorySettlement (finance)Media studiesSociologyArt historyArtArchaeologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: 'Pictures Bring Us Messages' / Sinaakssiiksi aohtsimaahpihkookiyaawa: Photographs and Histories from the Kainai Nation Judith Nasby Alison K. Brown and Laura Peers, with members of the Kainai Nation. 'Pictures Bring Us Messages' / Sinaakssiiksi aohtsimaahpihkookiyaawa: Photographs and Histories from the Kainai Nation. University of Toronto Press. xviii, 280. $29.95 In 1925 Beatrice Blackwood, an Oxford researcher, spent two days visiting the Blood First Nation Reserve in southern Alberta. She took thirty-three photographs of Kainai men, women, and children, recorded their measurements, and took hair samples as part of an anthropology project. Her photographs and field notes are in the collection of the University of Oxford's Pitt Rivers Museum. In 2001 researcher Alison K. Brown and curator Laura Peers worked with members of the source community to gain a better understanding of their perspectives on [End Page 350] Blackwood's photographs. The authors discuss the history of stereo-typical views of Aboriginal people taken by non-Native photographers from the early exploratory expeditions in the west, to the anthropological records of the dying races, to Edward Curtis's romantic portraits. Another objective was to gain a fuller understanding of early-twentieth-century history of the Kainai Nation when they were facing enormous challenges of poverty, government seizures of their land for non-native settlement, adoption of a new farming and ranching economy, the detrimental affect of residential schools on cultural values, and the government's prohibition of parts of their sacred Sundance ceremony. Brown and Peers, together with members of the Kainai Nation, also address a concern that some Aboriginal histories have been written on the basis of inadequate and incorrect field observations held in archival collections. The appendix contains a statement of consent for interviewees and a protocol agreement between the Mookaakin Cultural Heritage Foundation and the Pitt Rivers Museum stating that the museum would repatriate a set of Blackwood's photographs, recover information about culture and history through interviewing the elders, write a short book, inform museum professionals in the United Kingdom (and elsewhere) about the significance of photographs in recovering cultural information for First Nations People, and help develop a continuing community-based education project, exhibition, or teaching materials. The foundation in turn provided the names of individuals who were interviewed. The appendix contains a fascinating comparison between Blackwood's diary and commentary on her observations by members of the Kainai Nation, who reveal that some of Blackwood's observations were based on assumptions or comments by the Indian agent who accompanied her on a tour of the reserve. Another outcome of the collaborative project was the recovery of names of many individuals portrayed in the photographs. The book records the process of their collaborative community-based research, serving as a sound methodology for curators and scholars undertaking similar projects, and the useful protocols and agreements serve as models for working with Aboriginal archival collections. Judith Nasby Macdonald Stewart Art Centre, University of Guelph Copyright © 2008 University of Toronto Press Incorporated

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207