MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043557074 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.14038

The Museum That Queen’s Gave Away: Rediscovering the Queen’s Museum of Near Eastern Archaeology

2020· article· en· W3043557074 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)Context (archaeology)Art historyThe artsHistoryArtVisual artsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On October 26th 1954, a Museum of Near Eastern Archaeology opened in the Old Arts Building (modern Theological Hall), the home of Queen’s Theological College. The Museum had been conceived of and executed by Dr. A. Douglas Tushingham, a Biblical Archaeologist and scholar of Old Testament criticism, who came to work at the College as professor. The Museum only remained open for a little over one year, until Dr. Tushingham, who had left Queen’s to accept a job with the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), requested the items. Both Theological College and Queen’s University subsequently agreed to dismantle the museum and transfer the materials to the ROM, where the items remain today. This project reveals how the Museum came into being, what its function at Queen’s was, and the context surrounding the sudden and tragic loss of such a culturally and educationally significant collection. The research collected has come from a variety of news sources, online publications, and archival material provided by Queen’s Archives and the ROM Registration Department. As a result of this study, I and my professor (Dr. Barbara Reeves) are establishing through Queen’s Library an online exhibit featuring items from the original museum, as a way of amending the past and providing the educational resources initially intended through the museum’s establishment. The story of this museum, and the journey its collections took, raises important questions in the field of Museum Studies such as the responsibility cultural institutions have to promote cultural heritage, and the importance of modernizing 21st century collections to include online databases.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207