MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400589503 · doi:10.1386/9781789389166_17

What Can a University Gallery Do?

2024· book-chapter· en· W4400589503 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtwork scholarship · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

University art galleries can serve wide and varied purposes. Like traditional art galleries and art museums, the conventional university art gallery may take on the role of preserving and archiving particular histories by amassing curated collections of cultural value along with showcasing curated contemporary and period artworks and artists. While the conventional, well-funded gallery may be focused on the past, securing objects to remember it, unfunded galleries are pressed to gaze forward, to rethink their roles. This chapter describes how The LAIR Galleries, a collection of gallery sites at Lakehead University's Thunder Bay, Ontario campus, seeks to build flourishing communities and research capacity. To answer the focal question, What can a university gallery do?, the LAIR Galleries’ evolving vision, history, functions, and current considerations are described in this chapter.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.159 · 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