MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041323609 · doi:10.1177/1527476410385478

Subjectivity Through Self-Education

2010· article· en· W2041323609 on OpenAlexaff
Miranda J. Brady

Bibliographic record

VenueTelevision & New Media · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsInteractive kioskVisitor patternSubjectivitySubject (documents)Digital mediaSociologyPresentation (obstetrics)Media studiesMultimediaPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article looks at the use of digital kiosks and multimedia and multisensory presentation within the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) in Washington, D.C., to denaturalize assumptions about visitor and audience subject formation. Museums like the NMAI include numerous media technologies including multimedia presentations and digital kiosks as they vie for the attention of museum visitors. Proponents of digital kiosks in public spaces argue that they promote active engagement among visitors by encouraging “free-choice” learning, a process through which users make decisions about the content reviewed. This article argues that “free-choice” learning makes several assumptions regarding subject formation and that these assumptions constrain understanding of how media technologies shape meaning making potential in indigenous museums. It suggests that the existence of digital kiosks and multimedia presentations indicates disparate assumptions about visitor subjectivity and that these media are integral to the “techniques of the self” performed by the museum visitor as a multicultural citizen.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.038
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTelevision & New MediaSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207