MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The poetics and politics of ivory collecting and display at the Milwaukee Public Museum

2012· article· en· W4676795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arianna Wheaton Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Parasitology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Politics, and Modernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsPoliticsIvory towerArtArt historyMedia studiesPolitical scienceSociologyLiteratureLawPoetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The museum paradigm shift, first identified by Weil (1990), is evident in the transformations of the poetics and politics of ivory collecting and display over the past 25 years. Based upon Igor Kopytoff's (1986) "biographical" approach to material culture, this thesis demonstrates how ivory in museums has accumulated substantial and diverse cultural meaning, priming it for fluctuation according to modern-day culture shifts. Evidence of fluctuations in the social understanding of ivory is based on a new political ecology, which recognizes that a socially constructed nature underpins wildlife conservation efforts and cultural responses to extinction, both biological and cultural. The interpretation of ivory as a symbol of extinction may reflect Western global conservation ideologies. A visitor study (47 respondents) at the Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM) and an online survey of museum professionals (88 respondents), four artifact biographical sketches from the African and Inuit collections, and examples of ivory on permanent exhibit at the MPM are used to demonstrate shifts in museum practice and attitude. This thesis documents the changing meaning of ivory among visitors to the MPM yet finds a limited dialogue of modern interpretation by museum professionals throughout the United States. In the midst of these debates, ivory is one of the principal forms of material culture in the modern construction of nature.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for ParasitologySame topicArt, Politics, and ModernismFrench-language works237,207