Curating Colonial Canada: Museum Architecture and the Display of Aboriginal Cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’architecture reflète les valeurs et aspirations de la société qui la produit. Mais son rôle n’est pas uniquement passif : l’environnement bâti contribue à former l’expérience de ses utilisateurs. L’architecture des musées en représente un bel exemple, dans la mesure ou elle participe activement à la perception de l’exposition par le visiteur. Au Canada, plusieurs musées présentent des expositions sur les peuples autochtones et leur rôle dans l’Histoire commune. Ce rapport de recherche porte sur l’influence de l’architecture des musées sur la compréhension des cultures autochtones par les visiteurs. Pour cela, trois études de cas ont été choisies : le Musée d’anthropologie à l’Université de la Colombie-‐Britannique, le Musée canadien des civilisations et le Musée d’archéologie et d’histoire de Montréal, Pointe-‐à-‐ Callière. Les trois musées adoptent une architecture et des approches curatoriales différentes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.002 |
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".