Making kin is more than metaphor: Implications of responsibilities toward Indigenous knowledge and artistic traditions for museums
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it