World of museums / Le monde des musées
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The point of this brief article is to propose a better interpretative method on the subject of the bomber command controversy at the Canadian War Museum (CWM). My own interest was piqued mainly by a score of emails on the British Columbia Museums Association “listserve” late this summer, wherein many of our region’s museologists hotly debated both the morality of such warfare and a museum’s proper position in the face of heavy outside pressure to remove or revise offending displays. Additionally, I flew in such aircraft as a RCAF navigator during the 1950s and 1960s before embarking upon another career as a museum history curator, so I feel pulled several ways in an issue that has become deep-felt for me: what is more important to portray, the authentic voices of aircrew veterans or scholarly historical perspectives? Plainly, each has its place, and taken overall, even the newly revised CWM exhibits, when seen, give more weight to the former. The museum took a huge shortcut in\nportraying a dynamite subject.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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".