Provenance and historical warrants: histories of cataloguing at the Museum of Anthropology
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
Purpose This paper considers how knowledge has been organized about museum objects and belongings at the Museum of Anthropology, in what is now known as British Columbia, and proposes the concept of historical or provenance warrant to understand how cataloguing decisions were made and are limited by current museum systems. Design/methodology/approach Through interviews and archival research, we trace how cataloguing was done at the museum through time and some of the challenges imposed by historical documentation systems. Findings Reading from the first attempts at standardizing object nomenclatures in the journals of private collectors to the contemporary practices associated with object documentation in the digital age, we posit that historic or provenance warrant is crafted through donor attribution or association, object naming, the concept of geo-cultural location and the imposition of unique identifiers, numbers and direct labels that physically mark belongings. Originality/value The ultimate goal and contribution of this research is to understand and describe the systems that structure and organize knowledge, in an effort to repair the history and terminologies moving forward.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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