Museum Ethics in the 21st Century: Museum Ethics Transforming into Another Dimension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines, on the one hand, museum ethics as a set of behavioural principles, and on the other, morals as individual values of right and wrong. It suggests a juxtaposition of the two concepts (ethics and morality) and looks at the conflicts that are increasingly being set up between the two when ethical precepts border on moral deeds and transform into issues of conscience. In other words, it treats ethics and morals as two different dimensions whereby ethics are seen to have parameters that are firmly prescribed and those of moral behaviour being variable and subject to change, thus reaching outside and beyond ethical precepts. To underscore this position, several narratives illustrating some of the problems facing museums today are presented, and primary issues that currently and that will continue to afflict museums in respect of ethics are discussed. Museums as science, as steward, and as societal advocate and the conflicts between these various roles are advanced with a view to laying the groundwork for new trends in the development of museum ethics in the 21st 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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".