MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570651127 · doi:10.7202/1037608ar

Good intentions and the public good

2016· article· en· W2570651127 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrea Laforet

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationMandateCultural propertyIndigenousGovernment (linguistics)CivilizationCultural heritageIntellectual propertyPolitical scienceLawLegislatureHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than one hundred years Canada’s national museum of human history, called, successively, the National Museum of Canada, the National Museum of Man, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and, most recently, the Canadian Museum of History, has documented and assembled a record of intangible cultural heritage relating to various cultural groups. Originally collected and currently preserved under legislative mandates resting on broad assumptions about the public interest, this material includes a substantial body of narrative, song and information relating to both past and contemporary cultural practice of societies indigenous to Canada. This paper explores the issues for concepts of nationhood, knowledge and the public interest raised by the contractual agreements, legislation on topics ranging from copyright to family law, treaty negotiations between Aboriginal people and the Government of Canada, and consultation concerning different cultural definitions of property and the sacred that affect day-to-day access to and use of Aboriginal intangible heritage in the museum. Finally, the paper explores potential issues for the continuation of this work raised by the museum’s narrowing of focus and mandate as it changes from the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian Museum of History.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207