Principiile Codului deontologic al ICOM şi unele probleme de etică profesională din sistemul muzeal al Republicii Moldova / Principles of the ICOM Code of Ethics and some issues of professional ethics in the museum system of the Republic of Moldova
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important aspect of the professionalization of the museum sector is the institutionalization of the methods of competence assurance in the field. In this respect, an important indicator is the existence and implementation in practice of the Code of Ethics. The idea of museum ethics was launched in the US in 1902. The first national organization to publish the Code of Ethics was the Union of Museums in Germany – it happened in 1918. In 1925, the Association of American Museums published a Code of Ethics for Museums. In the 70s of the 20th century codes of ethics appeared in several countries – in 1977 – New Zealand and the United Kingdom, in 1979 – Canada and Israel, in 1982 – Australia. In 1974, ICOM’s 11th General Assembly (Copenhagen) called into question the need for a Code of Ethics for museum specialists. Such a Code was approved in 1986 at the ICOM Buenos Aires General Conference. The English and American Codes were set at the base of this Code. It was renewed in 2001 and 2004 and renamed the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. In Chişinău, the Code was translated into Romanian but was not approved by the National Committee of ICOM Moldova. It has been published, but it is little known – the code sums up a set of rules to be respected by the entire museum community. The code does not have legal force, in other words, it is not binding. It can only be effective when museographers are interested in respecting the principles of the Code. The ICOM Code is a reference document for museum specialists and contains defining principles for the professional ethics of the museum, a total of 8 principles. In the article, the author analyzes the principles included in the Code and tries to determine the modalities and responsibilities for their application in the museum system of the republic. Some ethical issues identified in museum activities, functioning of the Moldovan museum system and museum management are highlighted by reference to the components of the principles of the ICOM Code of Ethics. The author concludes that the absence of ethical, written or unwritten principles in the work of a museum institution leads to conflicts and dilemmas. No existing law in the Republic of Moldova regulates rules of good governance in the field of museums, in the field of protection and valorisation of cultural heritage. But there is the Code of Ethics for ICOM Museums, over which the museum world should lean and study, while the principles of the Code should be applied and respected in the everyday work. Because the Code defines the admissible behavior and responsibility of museographers, it protects the museum profession.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".