From connoisseur to the good manager. Perspectives in managerial curatorship from Canada and Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Managerial curatorship developed mainly, though not exclusively, as a practice and museum model in so‐called society museums during the 1990s, particularly in French‐speaking Canada and later in parts of French‐speaking Europe. It was progressively adopted in other cultural and heritage organizations in Latin America and more recently in the UK and USA. This model involves professional project managers taking on certain curatorial tasks such as exhibition‐making. This intentional deconstruction of the traditional curatorship model originally envisioned a displacement, or in some cases, a complete removal of the traditional curator figure. This paper examines two cases of managerial curatorship: one in Canada (Musée de la civilisation, Quebec City, 1988) and one in Brazil (Museu da Pessoa, São Paulo, 1991). It then puts forth two arguments. First, that there should be more focus on developing healthy teamwork by concurrently investing in community participation and career development of key staff figures. The second argument is that encouraging creativity is key to maintaining the sustainability of such a model in the 21st century.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".