Understanding how art museum visitors positively connect with artworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper deals with the concept of consonance as it applies to the aesthetic experience of adults who visit a Fine Arts museum. Generally, when describing a visitors reaction to art, we do not talk in terms of conflict or harmony, but adopt the expression aesthetic experience. Much research has been conducted to describe aesthetic experience, for example, the research undertaken by Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson, 1990; Guillot, 2001; Housen, 1983). We are aware of the complexity of the term and the scope of its meaning in philosophy Resumen Este documento trata sobre la experiencia que viven los adultos que visitan un museo de Bellas artes. En general, cuando se describe la reacción del visitante ante el arte, no hablamos en términos de conflicto o armonía, pero adoptamos la expresión de experiencia estética. Muchas investigaciones se han dirigido a describir la experiencia estética, por ejemplo, la investigación desarrollada por Csikszentmihalyi y Robinson (1990); Guillot (2001); Housen, 1983. Estamos conscientes de la complejidad del término y la amplitud de su significado en filosofía.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".