MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069560821 · doi:10.1080/15551393.2013.820585

“Exposing Yourself a Second Time”: Visual Repatriation in Scandinavian Sápmi

2013· article· en· W2069560821 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen Dobbin

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Communication Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepatriationIndigenousIdentity (music)Reading (process)HistorySociologyFrame (networking)AnthropologyGenealogyGender studiesEthnologyLawAestheticsPolitical scienceArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like many other indigenous peoples, the Sami were represented in anthropological photographs that were thought to record scientific data about their “race.” This article addresses four case studies from Scandinavian Sápmi in which Sami individuals use photographs drawn from anthropological collections to bring forth counternarratives to “official” history, ensuring personal and community continuity through a form of active remembering. I argue for the reading of these case studies through the frame of visual repatriation. What is repatriated in these initiatives is not necessarily the physical photographs themselves but rather elements of history, memory, and identity that are associated with the images. Many indigenous peoples were forcibly disconnected from their own histories through forms of colonization. These Sami initiatives highlight how a connection to historical photographs that contain traces of a difficult past can be empowering. The study reinforces the importance of access to and control of these collections for source communities.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisual Communication QuarterlySame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207