MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945039982 · doi:10.3138/chr.100.2.005.1

Canadian History Hall: A Review

2019· review· en· W2945039982 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeInterpretation (philosophy)Public historyStorytellingIndigenousMedia studiesAestheticsHistoryFacilitatorSociologyVisual artsPolitical scienceLiteratureArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review essay highlights some of the major changes introduced to the revamped Canadian History Hall at the Canadian Museum of History. It considers some of the efforts made to “Indigenize” the Hall through various museological and design elements, as well as the sustained narrative attention given to Indigenous histories, cultures, and personalities throughout all three of the galleries. The essay also identifies the visible impact made by the expanded role for historian-curators, especially a sensitivity to change over time, personality-centred storytelling, and a self-awareness of the subjectivity of all historical interpretation that was somewhat muted in the earlier iterations of the Hall. While all of this is encouraging, trying to show-and-tell too much plagues all three galleries, and in doing so the impact of the narrative is undercut. Finally, the essay suggests that the Hall ought to share more interpretive space with the wide range of source communities whose stories and material culture are on display. Acting as a facilitator and devoting resources to this end could move the Canadian History Hall closer to the ever-elusive goal of decolonizing public history and settler heritage institutions. Not only would this enrich the museum as a whole, but it could also serve as a model for other public history sites.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.014

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.104 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207