Fictional Archives: Exploring How Multiple Narratives Are Constructed in the Context of Cultural Heritage Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines artist-made fictional archives, which in this context refer to: photography-based projects that present fabricated records either as or alongside "authentic" historical documents. It discusses matters of photographic and institutional authority, as well as the concept of fiction as it relates to the creation of historical narratives. A qualitative case study analysis uses a selection of material from Walid Raad's project, The Atlas Group (1989-2004), to answer the following research questions. How are multiple narratives created by: artists through intended interventions within cultural heritage institutions; archivists and curators through managing and preserving collections; and individuals who use/encounter these collections? This thesis explores individual and collecting institutions' responses to the ideological questions raised by fictional archives. It demonstrates that when positioned within archival and museum contexts, even if photographs incorporate fiction, they gain validation through associations to institutional authorities and are received by audiences as authentic historical records.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".