Written signage and reading practices of the public in a major fine arts museum
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 Among the accepted ideas on the subject of the museography of fine arts, there is one that constantly recurs: visitors almost never read displayed texts. What is worse, their presence tends to distract visitors from the contemplation of masterpieces. Does the systematic observation of public behavior in a very large museum in Paris and interviews with small groups of French and foreign visitors confirm this suspicion? To answer this question, our team undertook two parallel series of investigations: one on the techniques employed in written signage design within this museum, and the other using observation and semi-directed interviews conducted with a random sample that distinguished between French and foreign visitors. Many categories of comments emerge from this research, all of which concern types of relationships between written signage and activities the public may undertake to appreciate works of art. This inquiry allows us to: (1) identify the elements of complexity in the museum's written materials; (2) describe the way these materials are used; and (3) understand the role they play in the social aspects of the museum visit.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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