“Museotherapy”: A New Concept for Promoting Health, Well-Being, and Therapy through Art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA) has been active in partnership with community for more than twenty years. During the last decade, the MMFA has pioneered numerous pilot programs with medical health providers. This chapter presents an emerging concept of “Museotherapy” (Nauleau, 2018; Bondil, 2021) that contextualizes a diversity of therapeutically intentioned practices in a museum. Conceived along a continuum of engagement, “museotherapy” seeks to address the wellness of the individual, the group, and the community. This concept was accepted in 2020 by the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF): Museotherapy is, following its Grand dictionnaire terminologique, “une méthode thérapeutique individuelle ou collective qui consiste en l’exploitation de l’environnement muséal à des fins de bien-être physique, psychologique et social. Plus concrètement, il peut s’agir de la contemplation d’œuvres d’art, de la création artistique en atelier ou de visite guidées en compagnie de médiateurs culturels.” An English translation of the definition would read, “Museotherapy: The exploitation of the museum environment as a therapeutic method for an individual or group for the purposes of physical, psychological, and social well-being. More concretely, it may involve the contemplation of works of art, artistic creation in a studio, or guided tours in the company of cultural mediators.” This vision redefines the role of an art museum, especially within society. “Museotherapy” requires reframing the role of the museum beyond the activities of art history, conservation, and supporting artists, and rethinking its public as Homo aestheticus, as experiential beings who are nourished by beauty and social connection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".