MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559982493 · doi:10.3138/utq.85.4.82

Public Humanities as Third Space: Memory, Meaning-Making and Collections and the Enunciation of “We” in Research

2016· article· en· W2559982493 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Cara Krmpotich

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Space (punctuation)SociologyPublic spaceFocus (optics)Meaning-makingHumanitiesEpistemologyArtLinguisticsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on scholar-practitioner precedents within museums, and collaborative research principles in museum anthropology, the Memory, Meaning-Making and Collections research initiative is offered as an example of public humanities research. Focus is placed on the dynamics between, and identities of, research participants from both the university and the public in order to interrogate how public humanities research engagements are conceptualized. Homi Bhabha's third space is used to analyse Memory, Meaning-Making and Collections, and the third space's capacity for disruptive enunciation encouraged as valuable – even necessary – within public humanities research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207