MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994364086 · doi:10.7202/1011530ar

Les nouveaux rôles des musées et la diversité culturelle : l’exemple de Tate Encounters, Britishness and Visual Culture, Tate Britain

2012· article· fr· W1994364086 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sophie Orlando

Bibliographic record

VenueMuséologies Les cahiers d études supérieures · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pour faire écho à la nouvelle image de la Grande-Bretagne, multiculturaliste, plurielle et inclusive, le gouvernement de Tony Blair met en place, de 1997 à 2010, une politique de « diversité culturelle ». L’omniprésence de celle-ci dans les débats nationaux va désormais lier définitivement les politiques culturelles du gouvernement à celle des musées nationaux britanniques. Dans cet article, Sophie Orlando prend comme cas d’étude les politiques curatoriales et éducatives du Tate Britain, et plus particulièrement le programme de recherche « Tate Encounters », qui tente de relire les politiques de diversité culturelle et d’intégration sociale, les différentes conceptions de la diaspora et de l’identité nationale, tout en interrogeant le rôle de l’institution muséale dans ces débats. L’auteure analyse ainsi les conditions d’émergence du projet et observe sa progression théorique, abordant les enjeux du programme de recherche et les problématiques qui ont jalonné l’expérience, de 2006 à 2011. Sophie Orlando commente finalement certains des résultats obtenus, notamment méthodologiques, et se questionne sur l’analyse du programme quant aux relations entre politique et culture qui entrent en jeu dans la promotion de la diversité culturelle du Tate Britain.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuséologies Les cahiers d études supérieuresSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207