Paleizen van het volk. Stemmen voor de democratisering van het museumbezoek in België (1860-1914)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palaces of the people. Lobbying on behalf of the democratisation of museum visits in Belgium (1860-1914)In the second half of the nineteenth century Belgian museums increasingly came under fire. They were heavily criticized for having become lifeless institutions that failed to fulfil their educational role. The mundane and overcrowded manner in which they presented their collections and their failure to provide any background information for visitors concerning their exhibits resulted in them being viewed as rather boring establishments by most people. A handful of museum reformers who wanted to help museums lose their reputation for stuffiness and elitism came up with all kinds of proposals to make the process of visiting museums more democratic. This article examines those proposals. The case of the Koninklijke Museums voor Sier- en Nijverheidskunst, established in 1889 in Brussels, is used to illustrate how the museums themselves dealt with the criticism and plans for reform. In this way it is hoped that some light may be shed on a relatively unexplored area, namely the history of cultural consumption and museum attendance in Belgium in the nineteenth century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".