MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Museum Rhetoric as Nation-Building

2024· article· en· W4405681815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amanda H. Sorensen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Information and Library Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian Institution
KeywordsRhetoricPolitical scienceSociologyAestheticsArchitectural engineeringMedia studiesArtLinguisticsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines analog records, ledger book pages and catalog cards, at the Smithsonian Institution (SI) National Museum of Natural History within the anthropology collections, examining how these documents advance an information infrastructure categorizing the Pacific Northwest materials making up accession 000051. Within this case study and textual analysis, I found that using a nation-building lens elucidated knowledge organization (KO) logics at play with these records. My critical reading outlines the ways these records firmly place Indigenous materials and belongings under SI and broader Euro-American knowledge systems via language use and place names, rhetorically furthering land dispossession and functioning to realize the US as a nation. This paper positions KO and associated rhetoric and language use as a tool of nation building, and museum records as a process, a genre of writing that have been honed, remade, and reinscribed over time within institutions toward political and national ends. I end this paper describing ongoing projects supporting and furthering Indigenous sovereignty via KO work in relation to cultural heritage collections, illustrating responses to the nation-building rhetoric within the SI records I analyze.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0200.047
Scholarly communication0.0140.016
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Information and Library ScienceSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207