Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the evolutionary pre‐history of the modern museum, the eclectic collections of the Romantic period tend to fall somewhere in between the early modern curiosity cabinet, the encyclopaedic enlightenment museum and the orderly public institutions of the later 19th century. This essay explores the place of the Romantic museum in that narrative and the usefulness of evolution as a metaphor for museum history, specifically in relation to questions of orderliness and the visual in the popular reception of museums in the period and in Darwin's engagement of those topics in On the Origin of Species (1859). A variety of late 18th‐century and early 19th‐century examples, and an eclectic cast of characters, are foregrounded: from the Duchess of Portland and her copious collections, to Rackstrow's museum of morbid curiosities, Sir Ashton Lever's Holophusikon (devoted largely to natural history) and the surgeon John Hunter's anatomical specimens. In these cases and others, the associative and imaginative capacities of the viewer are called upon to ‘make sense’ of the latent (dis)orderliness of things.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".