MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949868982 · doi:10.82308/5978

The art museum in code: display strategies of the National Gallery of Canada

2011· article· en· W2949868982 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Studies and Postmodernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtArt galleryNarrativeVisual artsContemporary artDigital mediaArt historyHumanitiesPerformance artComputer scienceWorld Wide WebExhibitionLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores the ways in which the art museum as a powerful cultural medium shapes the public understanding of artworks and how this work is affected by digital media when the museum displays art online. In an analysis of the National Gallery of Canada (NGC) I focus on how the artwork is encountered and understood in physical and digital contexts through the examination of three modes of museum practice: memory, information, and narrative. I compare each mode's manifestation in the physical museum space to its digital translation, revealing that the NGC largely reproduces its objective, highly authored, and one-way communicative practices in digital space. Other online interfaces such as the steve.museum project and the Art Matters blog of the Art Gallery of Ontario are examined as possible alternatives to the NGC's approach through their use of more open, collaborative, and social practices made possible by digital media.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.215 · 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