Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo analisa o caso do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, destruído por um incêndio em 2018, para o qual um projeto de parceria com a Google possibilitou a criação de uma visita virtual online na plataforma Google Arts and Culture. Em primeiro lugar, o artigo propõe pensar a digitalização do museu como media situado enquanto processo de remediação. Em segundo lugar, este texto questiona criticamente a viabilidade de plataformas digitais privadas como a Google Arts and Culture como sistema de remediação de um património comum. Oferece-se uma crítica à reconstituição virtual, problematizando o solucionismo tecnológico e a economia política das plataformas digitais, em particular quando aplicadas à resolução dos problemas de preservação e divulgação do património cultural. Conclui-se que esta adaptação constitui uma remediação limitada, porquanto acentua a centralidade da plataforma em detrimento da experiência do museu, e se circunscreve à apresentação da imagem do museu, sem permitir a leitura creativa e reinterpretativa que carateriza o media-museu.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".