MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977965409 · doi:10.7479/64y2-m311

Animals as Objects? / Tiere als Objekte?

2021· dataset· en· W6977965409 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMuseum für Naturkunde Berlin - Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMinnow Environmental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Natural historyNatural (archaeology)Ethnography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals as Objects? is a digital publication by the research project "Animals as Objects. Zoological Gardens and Natural History Museum Berlin, 1810 to 2020". The website animalsasobjects.org makes our research results on selected objects, histories, and species of animals available to German- and English-speaking audiences. We share historical, archival, and ethnographic answers to the question: How have animals been turned into natural history objects and data? Relational databases, the very databases that are often used to record and manage natural history collections, inspired the conceptual and visual design. There are three different types of articles: 1. Materials focus on specific photos, objects, documents, events, etc. 2. Stories answer big and small research questions through materials and other sources. 3. Themes address the bigger picture that links various stories and materials. They are interconnected in many different and sometimes surprising ways, emerging from the authors’ situatedness (in a discipline, institution, subject position) and interests. Tiere als Objekte? ist eine digitale Publikation des Forschungsprojektes "Tiere als Objekte. Zoologische Gärten und Naturkundemuseum in Berlin, 1810 bis 2020". Die Website animalsasobjects.org macht unsere Forschungsergebnisse zu ausgewählten Objekten, Geschichten und Tierarten für eine deutsch- und englischsprachige Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Wir bieten historische, archivarische und ethnographische Antworten auf die Frage an, wie Tiere zu naturhistorischen Objekten und Daten gemacht wurden. Relationale Datenbanken, genau die Datenbanken, die häufig zur Erfassung und Verwaltung von naturkundlichen Sammlungen verwendet werden, dienten als Ausgangspunkt für die konzeptionelle und visuelle Gestaltung. Es gibt drei verschiedene Arten von Artikeln: 1. Materien legen den Fokus auf spezifische Fotos, Objekte, Dokumente, Ereignisse, usw. 2. Storys liefern mithilfe von Materien und anderen Quellen Antworten auf kleine und große Forschungsfragen. 3. Themen öffnen den Blick für den thematischen Rahmen und bringen die vielen verschiedenen Storys und Materien zusammen. Sie sind in vielfältiger und manchmal überraschender Weise miteinander verbunden und ergeben sich aus der Situiertheit (in einer Disziplin, Institution, Fachposition) und den Interessen der Autor*innen.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.063

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.297 · 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