Möbius Museology: Curating and Critiquing the Multiversity Galleries at the Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter reflects on the process, product, and reception of collaborative curation at the UBC Museum of Anthropology's new visible storage galleries by discussing the reinstallation of Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuxalk collections. The metaphor of the Möbius strip explains how collaborative museology entails mutual engagements and processual relations, and makes clear the futility of asking who is in front of and who is behind the museum display case glass. What is on display is the relationships between curators, community members, and critics. As a consequence, the museum becomes a potentially potent location for the assertion of social status and cultural knowledge. In fact, it is these acts of cultural translation and mistranslation, legitimizing of community values, and claims to authority that are being exhibited. Reception and critique feed into curation and representation, making the space of the museum engendering as well as portraying.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".