(Re)Historicization of the past at the Royal Newfoundland Regiment gallery of The Rooms.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates the representation of history about Newfoundlanders’ contribution to the First World War in The Royal Newfoundland Regiment Gallery at The Rooms. Taking an ethnographic approach and focusing on the representation of war history in a provincial museum setting, I discuss the museum as an institution of power that functions through constructing, presenting and circulating certain ideological messages among visitors, volunteers and staff members. Elaborating on The Royal Newfoundland Regiment Gallery of The Rooms as a representational space, I demonstrate how the stories and displays of the exhibit have been placed in provincially legitimized representations to derive a particular understanding of the past. Finding a relation between myth and memory, this research further examines The Royal Newfoundland Regiment Gallery as a site of fabricating public memory, a place of providing history education as well as a space of constructing national and place identity. Finally, considering the functioning of the produced ideological messages and identifying visitors’, volunteers’ and staff members’ perspectives, this thesis asserts the importance of addressing alternative narratives in addition to producing grand narratives while representing history in a museum setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".