Objects, Identity, Storytelling, and Finding Common Ground
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While research literatures focused on memory and storytelling address the role of objects relative to (1) individual self-narrative and the expression of identity, and (2) group narrative and the expression of communal identity, the link between individual and group narrative and identity as afforded by objects does not appear to have been made, either explicitly, or as a locus of formal study. This paper will report on outcomes from the first of a multi-phase study exploring the role of objects in negotiating individual identity within a group context, where the articulation of a common identity is mandated by a coordinated, communal assembly or collaborative curation of objects – a community “display case” in the form of a public exhibition at a neighbourhood library. La littérature scientifique axée sur la mémoire et la narration aborde le rôle des objets relatifs à (1) l’auto-narration individuelle et l'expression de l'identité, et (2) la narration de groupe et l'expression de l'identité communautaire, mais il semble que le lien n’a pas été fait entre le récit individuel et le récit collectif et les identités, tel que fourni par les objets, que ce soit explicitement ou comme lieu d'une étude formelle. Cet article rend compte des résultats de la première phase d'une étude qui en comporte plusieurs portant sur le rôle des objets dans la négociation de l'identité individuelle dans un contexte de groupe, où l'articulation d'une identité commune est rendue obligatoire par une assemblée communale coordonnée ou par la conservation en collaboration d'objets - une communauté "vitrine" sous la forme d'une exposition publique dans une bibliothèque de quartier.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".