Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the results of a sociological survey devoted to the analysis of preferences and perception of maritime museums by their potential visitors. The topic of maritime heritage and its museification is relevant due to a number of strategic documents devoted to the development of activities aimed at marine resources and affecting the preservation and actualization of maritime heritage. Although there are studies devoted to maritime museums in Russia and abroad, the attitude of visitors to this kind of expositions has not been studied before. This lacuna, along with the need to develop maritime museums, determined the purpose of this work — to analyze the visitor’s perception of the topics presented in the expositions of maritime museums. The study is based on a sociological survey (20 topics were presented in the questionnaire). The sample size was 500 people, including 171 men and 329 women. The average age of the respondents was 32 (±11) years in the range from 12 to 74 years. The majority of the respondents live in the Central and North-Western Federal Districts. Slightly more than a quarter of the respondents work in museums or are associated with cultural and tourism institutions. The article analyzes the estimated results in accordance with the respondents’ age, gender, as well as their involvement in museum activities. The results of the research can be applied within the framework of scientific and exposition activities – in particular, when creating scientific concepts for new expositions and exhibitions dedicated to maritime heritage. In addition, they can be used in preparation of training courses dedicated to the study, preservation and museification of maritime heritage.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".