Understanding how art museum visitors positively connect with artworks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it