Making kin is more than metaphor: Implications of responsibilities toward Indigenous knowledge and artistic traditions for museums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many Indigenous communities do not regard objects as inanimate, but rather as animate kin. Based on our work as a collaborative group of museum coordinators and Hopi, Anishinaabe, and Penobscot artists, we explore narratives and kinship concepts emerging from working with collections of baskets and pottery. We question how recent theoretical conceptualizations of kinship have become overly rhetorical and, therefore, risk diminishing the tangible responsibilities that Indigenous knowledge systems teach. We explore how the new social networks forged through collaborative practices implicate museum personnel in kinship‐like relationships, which raises the question: What are the critical lessons museums can learn from the work of making and sustaining kin? Conventional western museology rarely contemplates these imperatives. The implications for museums that come with recognizing such networks are not only about conceptualizing kin in new ways, but also developing shared ethical protocols and responsibilities toward Indigenous knowledge and the environment over multiple generations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".