MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127513722 · doi:10.15760/etd.7499

History and Memory in the Intersectionality of Heritage Sites and Cultural Centers in the Pacific Northwest and Hawai'i

2000· report· en· W3127513722 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leah Rosenkranz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian American and Pacific Histories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPublic historyCultural heritageInterpretation (philosophy)Cultural heritage managementCultural memoryHistoric siteSociologyMedia studiesGeographyHistoryArchaeologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While working to maintain contemporary and future relationships with stakeholders, heritage sites and cultural centers across the United States attempt to tell the history and experiences of the land and people who were once there, are there in the present, and will be there in the future. Fort Vancouver National Historic Site is one of these heritage places. This study is a response to current management needs identified for the Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Through an internship with the ongoing Fort Vancouver National Historic Site Traditional Use Study, my research examines how heritage sites and cultural centers fulfill the needs of tribes and other diverse stakeholders, such as community members and park visitors. Using an inductive approach, my research focused on the roles of history and memory in the intersectionality of meaning at heritage spaces and how this influences the diverse aspects of these places. I analyzed the interpretive content and programming of 10 case study sites and two supplementary sites in Washington, Idaho, and Hawai'i and completed 15 semi-structured interviews. I identified five themes in the results: (1) stories told at sites are controlled by a set of established interpretive themes; (2) stories have a lack of shared authority; (3) shared stories have little hybridity; (4) contemporary Indigenous relationships with sites are rooted in ancestral memories and connections; and (5) sites share contemporary relationships with the public through live cultural programming. Building on this knowledge, heritage sites and cultural centers can develop interpretation and programming that is more representational of the memories, history, and Indigenous experiences of 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.033
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsian American and Pacific HistoriesFrench-language works237,207