MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128969546 · doi:10.1177/1354856520986268

Curating Viking objects through customized scrolling: How search engines personalize historical narratives

2021· article· en· W3128969546 on OpenAlexaff
Sheenagh Pietrobruno

Bibliographic record

VenueConvergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
FundersRiksbankens Jubileumsfond
KeywordsNarrativeSocial mediaPersonalizationMeaning (existential)Identity (music)SociologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceAestheticsLiteraturePsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stories that museum objects convey change on social media. This narrative shift is analyzed through the development of social media methods that track the dissemination of the Viking helmet from the Swedish History Museum to personalized YouTube search engine result pages (SERPs). Social media methods are used to compare the narratives and meanings produced on YouTube SERPs with the narratives and meanings sanctioned by the Swedish History Museum. The hermeneutic process at the core of the methodological approach reveals how personalization algorithms targeting user identities through IP addresses influence the meanings of objects, which are mediated and commercialized via social media SERPs. This research demonstrates that personalized search engine result pages have an algorithmic impact on the narratives of objects that counters the social justice goals integral to contemporary museum practices. The meaning curation of museum objects is not customized to individual preferences and identities. Museums advance selected interpretations of objects to endorse a variety of vantage points so that the fixity of identity categories can be questioned.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConvergence The International Journal of Research into New Media TechnologiesSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207