“Cyberpals!/Les Cybercopains!”: A Look at Online Museum Visitor Experiences
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 article examines approaches to creating museum Web sites that offer quality experiences to online users. In six case studies, museum Web developers in the U.S. and Canada describe how they have made the most of available human and financial resources. The development history of each site offers insights into the origins of a design and its subsequent versions, and describes the influence of institutional missions, philosophies, success indicators—and financial and human resources, the most crucial factors. The study found considerable variety in the backgrounds, expertise, titles and training of people developing Web sites within institutions. Web teams developed “exchange” experiences through online discussion, and by creating links among users, or between museum staff and users. In three case studies, Web sites encouraged visitors to cycle between online and on‐site museum visits. Web developers describe using quantitative and qualitative online audience research strategies. WebTrends TM software has enabled Web teams to report complex log analyses. Creating online experiences in partnership with users is the intention of Web developers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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