Plateformes numériques et engagement des publics de l’art lyrique : étude de cas de l’Opéra de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Art élitiste et complexe, public vieillissant et conservateur : l’opéra mobilise encore de multiples \npréjugés. Or, les nouvelles technologies de l’information et des communications, et en premier \nlieu les plateformes numériques telles que les réseaux socionumériques, modifient \npotentiellement le rapport qu’entretiennent les publics avec leurs institutions culturelles. Ces \nenjeux comportent en outre une dimension éminemment territoriale car il s’agit de voir comment \nune institution culturelle bien ancrée dans son territoire est susceptible non pas de s’en \ndétacher, mais de le transcender. En prenant comme cas d’étude l’Opéra de Montréal, ce \nmémoire s’intéresse à la façon dont les usages de la plateforme Facebook contribuent à \ntransformer l’engagement et les pratiques, des publics lyriques. Une stratégie de recherche \nalliant méthodes quantitative et qualitative a été mise en place; 17 entretiens téléphoniques \nsemi-dirigés et deux sondages totalisant près de 1 000 réponses auprès de plusieurs types de \npublics de l’Opéra de Montréal ont été réalisés. Les résultats de la recherche montrent que \nl’engagement des publics de l’Opéra de Montréal en ligne et en salle diffère selon leurs usages \ndes réseaux socionumériques et leur profil sociodémographique. Sur ce point, les variables de \nl’âge et du revenu sont particulièrement significatives. Il apparaît aussi clairement que la \nplateforme Facebook ne fait pas que compléter l’engagement des différents publics de \nl’institution : elle transforme la relation d’engagement en l’augmentant d’un niveau d’action. De \nplus, si la salle de spectacle demeure un point de repère important pour la majorité des publics, \nla relation d’engagement n’est plus exclusivement centrée autour d’elle. En effet, les réseaux \nsocionumériques constituent un outil supplémentaire pour s’engager sans avoir nécessairement \nbesoin d’assister à un spectacle en salle. Ces résultats invitent donc à repenser la notion de \nnon-public. Cette recherche fait également apparaître plusieurs figures idéales typiques du \npublic manifestant différentes formes d’engagement, de pratiques ainsi que différents profils \nsociodémographiques : le badaud, le fan et l’usager contraint. An elitist and complex art, an aging and conservative audience: the opera still prompts multiple \nprejudices. However, the new information and communication technologies, first and foremost \nelectronic platforms like social media, potentially change the audience’s relationship towards \ntheir cultural institutions. Furthermore, theses matters involve an eminently territorial dimension, \nfor the goal is to see how a cultural institution well anchored in its own territory is susceptible to \nbe, without detaching itself, transcended. Using the Opéra de Montréal as a study case, this \nthesis examines the way usage of the Facebook platform contributes to transforming the \ninvolvement and practices of the lyrical audience. A research strategy combining both \nquantitative and qualitative methods was implemented; 17 semi-structured phone interviews \nand two surveys totalizing close to 1000 responses from different Opéra de Montréal audiences \nwere carried out. The research results show audience involvement online or in theatre differs \ndepending on their use of digital social networks and on their socio-demographic profile. \nConcerning this last aspect, age and revenue variables are particularly significant. It also \nappears that the Facebook platform is transforming audience engagement by extending the \nscope of action. If the venue remains an important landmark for cultural audiences, engagement \nis no longer exclusively focused on it. Digital social networks are an additional tool to engage \nwithout having to attend a show. These results invite to rethink the notion of non-public. In \naddition, this research reveals several audience figures with different way to engage, practice \nand different socio-demographic profiles: the lurker, the fan and the forced user.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 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".