“Through a glass, darkly”: The metaphor of the lens in public discussions about the Canadian Museum for Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even before it has opened its doors, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) has been a topic of discussion, controversy and debate among scholars and in the media. What human rights issues should be included in the museum and how these should be represented have become fodder for public discussion and media criticism. This paper discusses some of the recent scholarship about ideas-based museums in conjunction with theories of the rhetoric of human rights in order to provide a context for a close reading of the use of the metaphor of the lens in the public debate about the CHMR. The paper suggests that the use of the lens metaphor is part of the “spectacular rhetoric” of human rights that, as argued by Wendy Hesford in Spectacular Rhetorics, “activates certain cultural and national narratives and social and political relations” (9). As such this metaphor is a restricted one that “defines the parameters of the public's engagement with key human rights issues” (Hesford 10). ReferencesHesford, Wendy. Spectacular Rhetorics: Human Rights Visions, Recognitions, Feminisims. Durham: Duke University Press, 2011. Print.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".