MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415586915 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v34i1.7793

Heritage NL Craft at Risk List 2021

2025· article· W4415586915 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terra Barrett, Katie Crane, Rachel Green, Gilbert Dale Jarvis, Michael R. Philpott

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrafts, Textile, and Design
Canadian institutionsNewfoundland and Labrador Arts Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftIndustrial heritageCultural heritageLimitingCultural heritage managementState (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) is known for its traditions, heritage skills, arts, and crafts. Concerned about the loss of traditional know-how, Heritage NL is working to document crafts at risk and to develop ways to encourage knowledge mobilization and the sharing of heritage skills. In 2019, the Heritage Craft at Risk Survey identified which crafts are most at risk of disappearing. Through the survey, organizers asked craft producers, makers, and builders to provide feedback on the current state of the heritage craft they were most familiar with. The survey covered topics such as the number of makers currently practising specific skills, and issues limiting the health of crafts.The Craft at Risk List is a joint project of Heritage NL and Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, that developed as a result of this survey. It ranks heritage crafts from currently viable to extinct and provides recommendations for the industry. One of these recommendations that Heritage NL is currently piloting is a Mentor-Apprentice program that allows deep learning of endangered skills for economic development. This poster will present an overview of the research that went into the Craft at Risk List 2021, and discuss why the Mentor-Apprentice Program was developed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2880.058

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 venueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization FoundationSame topicCrafts, Textile, and DesignFrench-language works237,207