Chinese Family Groups' Museum Visit Motivations: A Comparative Study of Beijing and Vancouver
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 comparative study explored Chinese family groups' dominant visit motivations in science museums and aquariums in order to understand the perceptions of these audiences, who are an under‐represented cultural demographic in the literature. In this study, 503 Chinese participants—131 in the China Science and Technology Museum, Beijing; 127 in the Beijing Aquarium, Beijing; 136 in Science World British Columbia, Vancouver; and 109 in the Vancouver Aquarium, Vancouver—completed a Family Group Visit Motivation Questionnaire. The results report four dominant visit motivations for these Chinese family groups. Significant differences in a fifth motivation, social interaction, were detected in comparing the Beijing and Vancouver Chinese family samples. Also, Chinese family groups were more likely to perceive science museums to be settings that can satisfy their educational and personal interest needs, compared to aquariums. This study provides insights for science museums and aquarium practitioners to better understand this audience demographic.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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