Donner la parole aux autochtones : quel est le potentiel de reconnaissance de l'exposition à plusieurs points de vue dans les musées?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborations with aboriginal communities appear to be increasing in Canadianmuseums, with the communities shifting from speaking in a context of claiming theirrights to being given a voice in the museum context. In keeping with the questioningabout ethnological museums, taking into account the voice of the aboriginal peoplesprefigures since the eighties the time for recognition. But the word recognition is used indiverse museum contexts.Based on a communicational approach, our research considers the links between thepolyphonic and recognition modalities of the exhibition media. We have attempted toidentify and understand the processes induced and generated by exhibitions’ interactionaland intertextual systems. The polyphonic system is conceptualized in three mediationmoments in the production and reception spaces of the exhibition: acknowledgment,monstration, and interpretation of aboriginal points of view. They correspond to therecognition intentions of the exhibitions and designers-museographers, then visitors’recognition.We have conducted four field studies in eleven different Canadian museums: participantobservation; one-on-one interviews with museum professionals; discourse analysis; groupinterviews with native and non-native visitors. We have studied the collaborative practicesand these four types of museum discourses to demonstrate the recognition potential ofexhibitions dedicated to the aboriginals’ perspectives.Our research reveals several recognition modes manifest in the combination andinterlinking of aboriginals’ and practitioners’ voices; it identifies logic in the polysemy ofthe word recognition. This interpretation essay reveals patrimonial and socio-historicalconflicts that generate regulation mechanisms through assimilation/accommodation. Apermanent recognition phenomenon emerges from the adaptations implemented by themuseums since the beginning of aboriginal patrimonialization during the colonizationperiod.Our research proposes to apprehend the museum as a recognition place of heritage, butalso of the general public and the peoples, whether donors or donees of that heritage.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".