Competing Agendas: Young Children's Museum Field Trips
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 Visitors to museum settings have agendas that encompass a wide variety of missions. Agendas are known to directly influence visitor behavior and learning. Numerous agendas are at play during a visit to a museum. We suggest that in a museum‐based learning experience, children's agendas are often overlooked, and are at times in competition with the accompanying adult's agendas. This paper describes and qualitatively analyzes three episodes of competing agendas that occurred on young children's field trips to museums in Brisbane, Australia. The aim is to elucidate the kinds of tensions over agendas that can arise in the experience of young museum‐goers. Additionally, we hope to alert museum practitioners to the importance of considering children's agendas, with the aim of improving their museum experience. Suggestions are also made for ways in which educators can address children's agendas during museum visits in order to maximize learning outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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