MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388894165 · doi:10.1080/09647775.2023.2283832

‘Qualifying the sacred: recognising First Nations cultural values in the management and repatriation of museum collections.’

2023· article· en· W4388894165 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMuseum Management and Curatorship · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepatriationCultural propertyAnthropologySociologyPolitical scienceGeographyArchaeologyHistoryEthnologyCultural heritage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Australian collecting institutions and heritage agencies have been returning Ancestral Remains and secret-sacred objects to Australian First Nations communities for over 30 years. In recent years, calls for repatriation have expanded to include what have often been called ‘secular’ objects. This paper considers the varying levels of sacredness potentially inherent in the types of ‘traditional’ secular objects that are characteristic of many museum collections. In museum collection management typologies, objects are often divided into discrete categories of secular, ceremonial and sacred. This paper considers how the divide between sacred and secular objects is actually far more complex, with associated impacts for collection management and repatriation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.264
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