Objects as Curricula - learning with museum artefacts through art/archaeology practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short Abstract: \nThe idea of objects as a curriculum has informed our work on Blackfoot items in UK museum contexts in which digital imaging was employed to aid in the revitalization of knowledge renewal for Blackfoot makers and has framed continued work in ethnographic collections both in the UK and in Sweden. \n \nLong Abstract: \nThe Blackfoot Elder Frank Weasel Head observed that for members of the Blackfoot community the objects held in UK museums were a curriculum. This insight informed our work on Blackfoot items in UK museum contexts in which digital imaging methods were employed to aid in the revitalization of craft making practices and knowledge renewal for Blackfoot makers. This insight has also framed our continued work in ethnographic collections both in the UK at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford and in Sweden at the Ethnografiska Museet, Stockholm. \n \nThe idea of objects as curricula was intended to underscore the importance of Blackfoot items held in distant museums for Blackfoot people, but over time the concept has gained a new momentum offering us a sense in which all museum items have the potential to teach. Coupled with this, our work on Blackfoot material adopted a series of innovative art/archaeology practices beginning with utilising digital imaging methods commonly used in archaeological fieldwork to developing remote-viewing sessions using these technologies informed by inclusive and open-ended art practice. In a dual sense then the museum archive collection was both a carceral container of of Indigenous teaching, and a site to be opened for innovation and learning: what was learnt very much depended on how we approached and intra-acted with the archive. This session will present a round table panel with a series of papers from members of the teams involved in a series of ongoing and interconnected projects.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".