MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390750415 · doi:10.4324/9781003358787-23

Repatriation of Chief Crowfoot's Regalia to the Siksika Nation – a conservator's involvement *

2024· book-chapter· en· W4390750415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Morwena Stephens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepatriationManagementPsychoanalysisPsychologyPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chief Crowfoot’s regalia was repatriated to the Siksika Nation, Blackfoot Confederacy, from the Royal Albert Memorial Museum (RAMM), Exeter. The process began as part of the Blackfoot Collections in UK Museums Network, with a 2013 Blackfoot delegation visit leading to the 2022 repatriation of Isapo-muxika’s (Chief Crowfoot’s) regalia. The collection obtained by Cecil Denny, an officer in Canada’s North West Mounted Police, at the 1877 signing of Treaty 7, was acquired by RAMM from Denny’s sister in 1904. The conservator’s role was to support the Blackfoot delegation visit (2013) and prepare the collection for repatriation. It comprises Isapo-muxika’s shirt, leggings, knife, necklace, sacred bundles, bow, bow case, quiver, horsewhips, and pouches. This involved making the regalia accessible within the store, engaging with the Blackfoot visitors, preparing the collection for the repatriation visit and transport to the Siksika Nation, and conservation documentation. Through consultation with colleagues and Siksika Elders, the needs of the regalia were established, regarding which objects should be packed together, taboos about handling the sacred material, and how each piece should be wrapped in cloth rather than tissue.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0190.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.004

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207