MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167977270 · doi:10.18192/clg-cgl.v7i1-2.5923

Cultural Diplomacy and Brancusi’s Reception in the Digital Age in Romania

2021· article· en· W3167977270 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicolae Stanciu

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture and Local Governance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyFolkloreCultural heritageSymbol (formal)Agency (philosophy)PoliticsCultural policyMythologyPolitical scienceReputationCultural heritage managementGovernment (linguistics)Media studiesThe InternetSociologySocial scienceAnthropologyArtLawLiteratureWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The internet and media resources have opened new opportunities for digital cultural diplomacy and management of culture. Theoretically an ideal choice for cultural diplomacy, Constantin Brancusi’s reputation as a representative for government agency has suffered a crisis of reception. A Romanian-born and French-adopted sculptor, Brancusi has become a symbol of folklore and mythology but also a great, internationally recognized sculptor. This has been due to the existence of preferred or fixed models of desigining projects instead of involving teams of different backgrounds and incorporating cultural concepts in the political discourse. Approaching the topic with concepts of cultural diplomacy, media anthropology, heritage and online discourse, this case study deals with media events of cultural diplomacy broadcasted online in present day Romania. It emphasizes the potential that lies in cultural management and the important role of team spirit in designing public cultural policies and implementing projects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture and Local GovernanceSame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207