MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visitors' Long‐term Memories of World Expositions

2003· article· en· W1975760183 on OpenAlexaffabout
David P. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurator The Museum Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDivision of Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsExhibitionFace (sociological concept)Scale (ratio)Term (time)PsychologySociologyMedia studiesVisual artsHistoryGeographySocial scienceArtCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article reports on the outcomes of a study that investigated the nature and character of visitors' long‐term memories associated with their experiences at large‐scale exhibitions. The study investigated themes that characterized visitors' memories of two global exhibitions: World Expo 86, hosted in Vancouver, Canada in 1986; and World Expo 88, hosted in Brisbane, Australia in 1988. There are a few studies in the literature that have considered long‐term memories associated with visits to informal learning environments, but no studies to date that have considered the impact and long‐term memories associated with large‐scale exhibitions such as world expositions. This study probed the long‐term memories of a total of 50 visitors who attended either Expo 86 or Expo 88, through in‐depth face‐to‐face interviews. Analysis of the interview data suggests that the key themes in memories of these events center on the social dimensions of visitors' experiences, visitors' recalled agendas at the time of the experience, and the socio‐cultural identities of visitors at the time of the experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurator The Museum JournalSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207