People, Museums and the Rhetoric of Temporality: Considerations Regarding the Formation of the Collection at The Museum of Anthropology of Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I went back to my doctoral research to show, through the analysis of archival material, how the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver, a majority museum, according to Clifford's definition, turned from “savior” to “patron” in relation to indigenous artifacts and became trough the years, starting with the direction of Michael Ames (1974-97 and 2002-04), an international benchmark for collaborative approach in museums. This article, focusing on the 1950s and 1960s, still shows the outcomes of a salvage anthropology and the idea of disappearing cultures, although in the 1960s the idea of new and original indigenous productions begins to make its way. Since Clifford first visited the museum in the 1990s, significant changes have occurred. In the early 2000's the MOA received funding for the implementation of a new type of collaborative research, the Reciprocal Research Network (RRN), in which research is determined by the interests of the Indigenous communities rather than the museum or scholars.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".