MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934337486 · doi:10.1080/00664677.2019.1587591

French Ambivalence Towards the Concept of ‘Indigenous People’: Museums and the Māori

2019· article· en· W2934337486 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natacha Gagné, Mélanie Roustan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropological Forum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary art, education, critique
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMinistère de la Culture et de la Communication
KeywordsIndigenousExhibitionSociologyColonialismContext (archaeology)AmbivalencePoliticsMedia studiesMaterialismCeremonyHeterotopia (medicine)MuseologyAnthropologyGender studiesEthnologyHistoryPolitical scienceLawArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Museums around the globe have experienced important changes in recent years in response to decolonisation processes and the demands of indigenous peoples. French museums are no exception, but the transformations have certain French hallmarks. This article explores the way France is dealing with its colonial legacy and, by means of two case studies, unravels the diverse political and historical particularities of the French context. The first looks at the results of a comparative analysis of the French and Québécois public’s response to the travelling exhibition E tū ake: Standing Strong produced by the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. The second focuses on the repatriation ceremony of Māori toi moko (tattooed preserved heads) that took place in Paris in January 2012. These two case studies examine the French uses of concepts such as ‘community’, ‘minority’, and ‘indigeneity’ as well as the complex relations between religion and rationality, ancestral presence and materialism in French public life. The article investigates how these concepts participate in the fabric of French society, and thus in shaping contemporary museum landscapes.

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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.033
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropological ForumSame topicContemporary art, education, critiqueFrench-language works237,207