Muséologie numérique: Action participative en réseau et canonisation selon l’intelligence artificielle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents how certain practices in contemporary art enrich the analysis and critical reflections on digital culture, taking art history and museology as two important issues. The former touches on culture’s relational and participatory value in networks; the latter is related to the effects of this value in the visualisation and canonization of works of art. What is the nature of my appropriation of art when I’m invited to choose works, on a museum’s website, to create “my collection,” “my art gallery,” “my personal museum?” Does this type of invitation favour the democratisation of art knowledge? Or, on the contrary, do these initiatives replicate institutional principles that maintain the prescribing museum’s authority? Does participatory cybermuseology present new issues that result in communal action? Or, alternatively, does it consistently reproduce the traditional canonization process of works of art without permitting a critical reinterpretation? To answer these questions, the theoretical analysis presents proposes layouts, online, of works that originate both from the public domain and from collections from large museums, ranging from the artistic practices of Julia Weist to the Google Art Project. Résumé Cet article montre comment certaines pratiques en art contemporain enrichissent l’analyse et la réflexion critique sur la culture numérique, en relation avec deux enjeux importants en histoire de l’art et en muséologie. Le premier a trait à la valeur relationnelle et participative de la culture en réseaux; le second se rattache aux effets de cette valeur dans la visualisation et la canonisation des oeuvres d’art. De quelle nature est mon appropriation de l’art lorsqu’on m’invite à choisir des oeuvres, sur un site Web de musée, pour créer « ma collection », « ma galerie d’art », « mon musée personnel »? Ce type d’invitation favorise-t-il une démocratisation de la connaissance de l’art? Ou, au contraire, ces initiatives reconduisent-elles les principes institutionnels qui maintiennent le pouvoir du musée prescripteur? La cybermuséologie participative propose-t-elle de nouveaux enjeux qui aboutissent à une action communautaire? Ou, sinon, reproduit-elle constamment le processus de canonisation traditionnel des oeuvres d’art sans en permettre une relecture critique? Pour répondre à ces questions, l’analyse théorique propose des exemples de présentation, sur le Web, d’oeuvres qui proviennent aussi bien de l’espace public que des collections de grands musées, soit de la pratique artistique de Julia Weist ainsi que du Google Art Project. Mots-clés: Cybermuséologie; art numérique; musées et mediation; Julia Weist; Google Art Project
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".