MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229025094 · doi:10.36315/2022inpact019

DOES PHYSICAL IMMERSION HELP ADULT VISITORS PROCESSING WORKS OF ART EXHIBITED IN A MUSEUM?

2022· article· en· W4229025094 on OpenAlexaff
Colette Dufresne-Tassé, Eliette Reisacher, Camille Venuat, Louise Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological applications and trends · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsNational Museum of Fine Arts of QuebecUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmersion (mathematics)PopularityVisual artsComputer scienceArtMultimediaPsychologyMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Given the popularity of spectacular events that produce physical immersion, museums are tempted to exhibit their collections in rooms where visitors are plunged in such immersion. A comparison of three rooms displaying works of art in the traditional manner, but one of which having an installation that induces physical immersion, showed that such immersion does not lead to an increase in the rate of treatment of the works, nor does it increase the fascination for them, i.e. psychological immersion."

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological applications and trendsSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207