Sonoma Stories and the Song Wong Bourbeau Collection: A Model for an Exhibition and a Public Outreach Program--An Innovative Approach to CRM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the Investigative Project: \nIn accordance with the Collection???s Management Policy of the Sonoma County \nMuseum, will be (1) to assist the Museum in interpreting a thematically based \nmultimedia presentation of a portion of their collection; (2) to emphasize a certain \ncontinuity in the Museum???s and county???s material culture and landscape; (3) to \ncontribute to the inventory of collections prior to the Museum???s major expansion; \n(4) to foster a partnership between the Museum and the public it serves; and (5) to \ninvolve other repositories of the county???s material culture (e.g. the ASC, the \nSonoma County Library???s History Annex) through collection loan agreements and \nexposure of archaeology and related discipline???s ???grey literature.??? \nProcedure: \nThis investigative project documents through text, photographs and images, \nplanned exhibitions, audiotapes, oral histories, curriculum guides, and suggested \nfield trips the ???Chinese cultural heritage??? of Sonoma County using the Song \nWong Bourbeau Collection. An exhaustive search of public records relating to \nSonoma County was undertaken including: primary and secondary source \nmaterial, newspapers, maps, diaries, letters, manuscripts, photographs, oral \nhistories, and the grey literature of archaeology and related disciplines. Virtual \ndisplays were designed to accompany the planned exhibit. Interpretive texts for \ndisplays include the use of stories excerpted from autobiographies, oral histories, \nand poetry. A collaborative community model was the basis for research \nmethods. \nFindings: \nThis collection illustrates the continuity of cultural heritage over time, as family \nmembers care take objects of historical and cultural significance???from a pair of \nChinese slippers for bound feet from Song???s grandmother to altar accoutrements \nfrom the temple to Song???s collection of figurines in clay and ivory to generations \nof family photographs. Historical analysis necessary in the process of public \ninterpretation of heritage-based displays is aided by gathering ethnographic data. \nThe Song Wong Bourbeau family legacy is Sonoma County???s quintessential \nexample of the Chinese experience in Western history. Song herself epitomized \nthe women in the West who, in historian Richard White???s (1991:315) words, \n???were quick to extend its boundaries into the culturally defined male spheres of \nbusiness and commerce.??? \nThe Song Wong Bourbeau Collection was to be subject to a complete inventory \nfor this investigative project. Complications and errors with the collection \nquickly surfaced. It became evident that an inventory had not been performed in \nmany years. There are objects in the collection apparently stored in an offsite \nfacility that has no inventory list. Catalogue mistakes were noted, object location \ndata was missing or inaccurate, and objects were found improperly stored. \nConclusions: \nMuseums must be perceived as knowledgeable interpreters for a meaningful \nexperience to transpire. Therefore, this project used all available sources???art, \nmuseum collections, archaeology, primary documents offering a ???culturally \nsensitive perspective??? (Beaudry, Cook, and Mrozowski 1996:281), and audiovisual \ncomponents???in showcasing the exhibit. \nAn innovative approach to meaningful public interpretation of artifacts, museum \ncollections, and historical landscapes involves the use of storytelling. The \ntechniques used include: excerpts of oral histories, relevant autobiographies, and \nprimary and secondary source material. Combining authoritative and aesthetic \nreference points invites audiences to actively construct their knowledge and \nsubjectively value their experience (Barrie 2001:27), which is the foundation of a \nmeaningful interpretive experience. \nI recommend that the scope of the project???s model exhibit be extended to include \nthe entire collection in continued collaboration with the Redwood Empire Chinese \nAssociation, the Chinese Cultural Center of San Francisco, the Chinese Historical \nSociety of America, and archaeologist at the Asian American Collaborative \nCollection. I also recommend a thorough audit of this collection to rectify gaps \nand errors in associated records.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".