What kinds of records should be kept in a museum?: A case study of the National Gallery of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
近年、世界の主要美術館では来歴研究がさかんに推進されている。背景には、略奪美術品問題など社会からの要請があるが、そのような社会的使命を視野に入れつつ、今日の美術館アーカイブズはどのような記録の保存に取り組んでいるのか、カナダ国立美術館を事例として探るのが本稿の目的である。 美術館において重要視されている記録は、作品に関する記録や展覧会に関する記録であるが、カナダ国立美術館では前者はコレクション・マネジメント室に、後者はアーカイブズ室において保管されているという具合に、必ずしも館内の全ての重要な記録がアーカイブズ室に引き渡されているわけではない。しかしアーキビストは館内における記録の作成部局や保管部局の把握に努め、全体を監視して、記録を守る役割を果たしていた。 アーカイブズ室では展覧会記録のアクセシビリテイ向上に力点を置いているが、その特徴は検索手段として図書館目録を使っている点にある。それにより、組織の活動に関する重要な資料は、図書館所蔵かアーカイブズ所蔵かにかかわらず、共通のプラットフォームにおける総合的な検索が可能となっているのである。 Over the last decade, several major art museums around the world have made substantial headway in conducting research on provenance, or the history of ownership of a work of art. Behind this phenomenon there is increasing public interest at the international level in looted and confiscated art from the World War II era. Taking this issue into account, this paper examines on the basis of the example of the National Gallery of Canada what types of records shall be kept in art museums. The author first provides an overview of records and archival materials that are maintained in the Gallery. Whereas the records relating to the Gallery exhibitions are maintained in the Library and Archives, there cords relevant to the artworks of the Gallery are housed in the Collections Management Department. The author gives attention to the fact that the archivist is fully aware of what records are kept in which department and plays an important role in preserving there cords under such circumstances. Finally, the author describes the project of the Archives of the Gallery to make the exhibition related records more accessible to the public.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".