Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’une réflexion sur l’évolution des collections et des expositions d’artefacts et d’objets d’art amérindiens aux États-Unis depuis le 19esiècle, l’auteur brosse un tableau des principales mutations des pratiques de catégorisation et d’exposition des collections ethnographiques aux États-Unis. Si au 19esiècle la rage de l’ordre incite les conservateurs à organiser les collections à partir de critères de forme et de fonctions des objets, au tournant du 20esiècle, sous l’influence de Franz Boas, ils s’appuient de plus en plus sur la géographie et les histoires culturelles pour catégoriser les objets et construire de nouvelles typologies. En muséologie, cette nouvelle orientation s’est traduite par les dioramas destinés à reconstituer un aspect du mode de vie traditionnel d’un groupe donné. Plus récemment, les musées américains tendent à esthétiser fortement les artefacts amérindiens pour en faire des objets d’art alors que les Amérindiens « patrimoinisent » les objets rapatriés des musées d’État.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.009 |
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".