MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994137592 · doi:10.1017/9781787445925.011

The Bear in the Museum

2019· other· en· W2994137592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Davis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyArchaeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of my earliest childhood memories was of a school visit to Towneley Hall Museum and Art Gallery in my home town of Burnley. Before the visit, rumours had been spreading amongst my classmates of the terror that would be felt when we came face-to-face with ‘the bear’. However, I rather liked him, and it is good to know that this Himalayan black bear is still there, standing at the top of the stairs, grasping a tree branch and threatening any visitor daring to enter his domain. In his original condition when arriving at Towneley he would have been less worrisome, having been sent around 1908 from Kashmir as a rug by a native of Burnley, William Theodore Taylor. The bear, mounted in his current menacing position in 1920, first appeared in the Towneley Hall exhibition catalogue in 1928. According to curator Mike Townend (4 April 2018, pers comm ), ‘He has been the highlight, as well as the terrifying part, of many a child's visit and continues to be so.’ Websites now refer to him as ‘Towneley's famous bear’ and he acquired the name ‘Bill’ some 15 years ago for reasons unknown. My next memorable bear encounter was at Sheffield Museum, where as a junior curator one of my tasks was to carve new wooden claws for the polar bear that stood on open display in the entrance hall; for some reason visitors felt fake bear claws were ideal mementoes of their visit to Weston Park. Despite its poor condition – and threatening gaze – the Sheffield public loved this bear and there was an outcry from local people when it was removed from display in the 1980s. Although a replacement polar bear was found and is also valued by visitors, Sheffield folk still remember the original specimen – now exhibited at Eureka in Halifax. These two examples demonstrate that visitors to museums – especially local repeat visitors – clearly form an affinity with bears in museums. These mounted bears fascinate us, carrying the significance of their species and the environments they once inhabited. It is interesting that – rather like bears in zoos – they frequently receive familial names, a feature that Swinney (2011) terms ‘rampant anthropomorphism’.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1390.025

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207