MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015094212 · doi:10.3390/su12072890

The Behavioral Pattern of Chinese Public Cultural Participation in Museums

2020· article· en· W3015094212 on OpenAlexaff
Wende Wang, Mozhuang Fu, Qingwu Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Cultural Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersWuhan University
KeywordsPublic participationCategorical variableAffect (linguistics)Cultural rightsSurvey data collectionQuestionnaireSociologyOrdinal regressionPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying the cultural participation model of the public and its influencing factors is important for the sustainable development of regional culture. Therefore, in this study, we determined which factors influence the cultural participation of the Chinese public. Firstly, we extracted the key features of the motivation and timing for a museum visit with multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), and explored the relationship of the features of different motivations with the frequency and duration of the public’s visits to the museum. Secondly, we determined the monotonicity of the influence of ordinal variables on cultural participation behavior and identified the mechanism through which the independent variable influences public cultural participation with categorical regression (CATREG). Finally, we analyzed the research data from the museum audience survey in the Hubei Provincial Museum and a national public culture participation survey. We found that education, occupation, academic discipline, income, distance, age, and sex affect the public’s museum participation. This indicates that to guarantee the public’s cultural rights and promote sustainable development, education, planning, and other aspects must be coordinated in cultural management to increase public cultural participation, rather than removing the economic threshold for public cultural participation through public finances alone.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSocial and Cultural DynamicsFrench-language works237,207