Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In consumer research, the relationship between memory work and forgetting remains largely unexplored, and the “forgetful” role that souvenirs can play in remembering is misunderstood, even denigrated. The present study explores the connections between memory work, forgetting, and material culture. Drawing on contemporary material culture studies, it offers a reflection on the memory practices of New Yorkers in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Based on ethnographic research conducted in New York City, it provides evidence that remembering and forgetting can coexist and interconnect in complex ways. Uncovering the mechanics of forgetting in memory practices with souvenirs, it takes the research on memory and material culture beyond the semiotic analysis of signs and symbols, and shows that souvenirs can play a fundamental role in the process of obliterating and/or compartmentalizing aspects of past experiences. Although it may be true that New Yorkers—especially those who personally experienced 9/11—have no need of souvenirs to remember, many of them have memory practices that involve using souvenirs to forget.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".