Swept under the Carpet:\nSubtle Tales from the Back Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Ruth Phillips, we are poised to enter the second museum age. For many years now museums has been the object of serious criticism. First Nations have critiqued museums’ authority to represent and possess culturally significant objects. There has also been a shift away from object-based research—undermining the very foundation of museums. They have been forced to re-evaluate who they are, whom they are for, and what to do with all that stuff in the storerooms. Since the mid-1980’s there has been growing responsiveness to indigenous peoples concerns, efforts to share authority, and a re-envisioning of museums as places to enhance community relations and share different stories. The study of material culture has similarly been re-invigorated. Arjun Appadurai’s now classic The Social Life of Things set things in motion— literally and figuratively—encouraging an awareness of objects’ social lives, how they are produced, used, and exchanged. This in turn has contributed to the telling of many tales as objects intersect with different individuals and communities. Textile studies since the 80s have generally reflected these shifts and contributed to them. The specialized field of Carpet Studies…Well that is another story.\nIn 2005 I joined The Nickle Arts Museum at the University of Calgary as Curator of Decorative Arts. I am primarily responsible for the Jean and Marie Erikson Rug Collection. As a cultural anthropologist with expertise in the area of South Asian embroidery traditions, rugs pose a new challenge in terms of technique, geographic area, and culture. In fact, this paper is really a reflection on the culture of rugs. It examines some of the narratives that surround the Erikson Collection—the Collectors tales, Dr Erikson tales, some of my own, and some, I hope, that allude to the weavers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".