MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W24982074 · doi:10.1128/aac.03163-14

Technical Brief 19: Archeological Collections and the Public: UsingResources for the Public Benefit

2006· article· en· W24982074 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Teresa S. Moyer

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital and Traditional Archives Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Park Service
KeywordsOutreachArchaeologyCollections managementHistoryLibrary sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Archeological collections are rich resources for building outreach programs that engage the public, in exploring the depth and diversity of the past. The collections provide building blocks for acquiring skills and knowledge that are useful in modern life by investigating the material evidence of past peoples and learning lessons from their experiences. In these ways, archeological collections open avenues of inquiry for new approaches to old problems and enable professionals to assess the relevance of curatorial practice in contemporary society. Outreach programs have a wealth of material available to them as a result of archeology, perhaps even more than some curators realize. Beyond artifacts, archeological collections can include many other kinds of materials, such as soil samples, photographs, maps, research and excavation reports, project notes, oral histories, ethnographic records, and other information pertinent to an excavation. They tend to be managed by federal and state agencies, tribes, and local constituencies in many kinds of repositories, including libraries, historical societies, parks, museums, colleges and universities, and even private collections. Note, however, that many other places care for archeological materials, including tribal heritage centers and cultural resource management companies. Members of the curatorial staff within the repositories, however, are not necessarily archeologists and may demonstrate a lack of understanding about archeology. This lack of familiarity impedes their ability to explore the full potential of archeological collections for outreach and education. Archeologists and non-archeologists alike must seek creative applications for the collections they curate. Outreach provides an outlet to educate the public and encourage questions about the past and present. Whether well-versed or new to archeology, museum professionals should understand that responsible curation involves making the resources of archeological collections available as a means for everyone to learn about the past. Finding a Purpose for Curation Audiences for Collections Case Studies Nevada State Museum, Carson City, Nevada Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard, Maryland Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository, Kodiak, Alaska Archaeology Collection, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service Conclusion Bibliography Special thanks to

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0110.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2490.200

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Agents and ChemotherapySame topicDigital and Traditional Archives ManagementFrench-language works237,207