A Science Exhibit About Mental Health: Expectations and Engagement Perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the last century and a half, scientific development has been breathtaking, but the understanding of this progress has dramatically changed.It is characterized by the transition from the culture of 'science' to the culture of 'research.'Science is certainty; research is uncertainty.Science is supposed to be cold, straight, and detached; research is warm, involving, and risky.Science puts an end to the vagaries of human disputes; research creates controversies.Science produces objectivity by escaping as much as possible from the shackles of ideology, passions, and emotions; research feeds on all of those to render objects of inquiry familiar (Latour 1998, 208-209).How did the transition from "science" to "research" described by sociologist and philosopher of science Bruno Latour materialise in the world of science museums and science exhibitions?This question lies at the heart of this paper.My aim is to examine the changing roles of science exhibitions from places of "cold" science, where secure, closed and fixed knowledge is communicated, to places that increasingly engage with "hot", controversial research and open debates.The examples discussed are European ones (from the United Kingdom, France and, above all, Austria) and I will be focussing on the display of controversies, rather than on displays that cause controversy.In the first part of the paper, I discuss how controversies have been studied in the field of science studies.In the second I examine the recent evolution of (some) museums from "cold" to "hot".Then, in the third part, I look at two recent exhibitions that dealt with the controversial nature of science.I will argue that while the "cold" way to exhibit science is through stabilised objects, the "hot" way works through relationality, that is, through highlighting the multiple relationships between visitors and objects, and between the positions of the various contenders in the controversy.The paper develops the concept of a "texture of controversy" in trying to make sense of exhibition arrangements focused on positions, relationships and processes, rather than stabilised products and objects.In displays about controversies we encounter an object that is open in many ways: to be flexibly interpreted, to be engaged with, to be questioned, to be challenged.Such an object materialises a number of symmetries: between various actors, between art and science, and between right and wrong.Two examples from the city of Vienna -the Gallery of Research and the true/wrong inc.exhibition -will shed some light on how controversial science can be exhibited. The study of controversies in science studiesOne way to make sense of the shift from cold science to hot research comes from the field of science studies (often interchangeably referred to as 'science, technology and society' or 'science and technology studies' or
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,032 | 0,040 |
| Communication savante | 0,035 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,032 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,019 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».