Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most information on exhibitions found in the museum and library literature is of little use to the archivist faced with preparing an exhibition of archival material. A body of literature exists dealing with the allotment of institutional resources to the exhibition function and with the physical care of archival material on exhibition. However, little has been written about the principles governing an archival exhibition's inspiration and development, principles that need to be identified before addressing the methods and practice of mounting an exhibition. This thesis is a response to that need. Exploratory, rather than descriptive or explanatory, its purpose is to identify the principles governing the creation of archival exhibitions, not the practicalities or mechanics of mounting them. Primary sources for this study are exhibition catalogues and brochures solicited from various Canadian archival institutions as well as the letters from members of the Canadian archival community that accompanied the catalogues and brochures. The thesis first establishes that the creation of archival exhibitions is subject to fundamental archival theory. Then, it addresses the ideal motivations or purposes behind thematic, celebratory, institutional, and functional exhibitions and demonstrates that they are linked to the mandate of the archival institution and the nature of the targeted audience. The thesis concludes that archival exhibitions have a responsibility to promote the archival institution and its holdings and to educate people regarding archival functions and services, and that institutional and functional exhibitions are, by definition, best designed to accomplish these objectives.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".