Les biocides dans les collections – persistances toxiques, relectures critiques et nouvelles pratiques
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
Dans cet entretien, les autrices (deux conservatrices-restauratrices au Musée d'ethnographie de Genève, et une chercheuse en muséologie) interrogent les pratiques de conservation muséale et leurs finalités à l'aune des moyens employés et leurs effets parfois inattendus. Si les traitements chimiques des collections visaient à stabiliser la condition matérielle des artefacts, leur action toxique sur les professionnel.les, les objets eux-mêmes mais aussi les publics concernés n'a souvent pas été prise en compte lors de leur emploi. Dans une perspective de décolonisation plus ample, il se pose la question : comment la conservation-restauration peut-elle participer à dépasser les prises de décisions unilatérales de la part des professionnel.le.s de musée pour faire entendre et prioriser les choix de personnes et communautés concernées ?
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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