Time perspectives: What ‘the future’ means to museum professionals in collections‐care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservators and others with an influence on the care of collections are required to make very specific decisions for the future of these collections. Success of decisions can only be judged by their outcomes at some point in the future. In the absence of objective and explicit time scales, these professionals are likely to apply personal perspectives to their decision outcomes. When ‘the future’ represents different time periods among decision makers, this is a source of conflict and inconsistency. Museum professionals in the Victoria & Albert Museum and The Natural History Museum, London, and the Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, were surveyed to determine their perspectives on the time‐period represented by ‘the future’ in collection‐care decisions. Respondents felt strongly that the needs of present and future users of collections should influence current decisions equally. They also tended to perceive ‘the future’ as 100 years but the wide range of opinions held appear to be personal choices among most respondents. It seems appropriate that decisions on proposed conservation treatments or planned strategies for collections care should be framed with an agreed perspective on the future period during which decisions outcomes are to be effective and their success or otherwise assessed.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".