MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754907066 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6351-047-9_19

De-Constructing Cabinets of Curiosity

2017· book-chapter· en· W2754907066 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cynthia Wallace-Casey

Bibliographic record

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuriosityTrustworthinessHistoryArt historyVisual artsArtPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community history museums provide powerful sites for learning about the past. Although those of us actively involved in museum education intuitively know this, in Canada we now have figures from the recently published national survey, Canadians and their pasts (Conrad et al., 2013), to support such claims. Their findings show that, currently, the largest proportion of adult Canadians (30%) rate museums most highly, as the single most trustworthy source of historical knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.012

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensePublishers eBooksSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207