MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407370688 · doi:10.1080/15596893.2025.2463658

Museum reconciliation and reparations: Canadian context

2025· article· en· W4407370688 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liz Feld

Bibliographic record

VenueMuseums & Social Issues · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Political scienceHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released a report with 94 Calls to Action that address the crimes committed against Indigenous populations in Canada but do not hold museums sufficiently accountable for participation in colonial practices nor do they detail demonstrable actions to engage in genuine reconciliation. With museums being historically complicit in violent collecting practices and ongoing misrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in Canada, discussions around decolonization and reconciliation feel premature. An initial step on the road to reconciliation is the creation of a collaborative database that provides access to heritage artifacts to aid in the return of Indigenous sacred objects and human remains and to enable participation in the development of affective database entries.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuseums & Social IssuesSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207