Vers une modernisation de la gouvernance dans les musées nationaux : théories, pratiques et perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On December 9, 2016, Luc Fortin, Minister of Culture and Communications, announced the adoption of Bill 114, whose goal is to “modernize the governance structure of Quebec’s national museums.” Thirty-three years after the passage of the National Museums Act establishing the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec (MNBAQ), the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal (MAC) and the Musée de la civilisation (MCQ) as national museums, the adoption of Bill 114 is an ideal time to examine the concept of governance in the museal context, as well as potential consequences for Quebec museology.While the question of governance has often been raised over the past few years in the field of both public and private administration in Quebec, its application in the domain of museology has long been delayed. Developed structurally and conceptually in the vast majority of the province’s museal network, which is to say that it refers, first and foremost, to a structure of functioning and a management mode, the notion of governance nonetheless generates even more questions about the articulation and comprehension of these principles in regards to their application. In particular, think of the regulations governing the composition of boards of directors, of the criteria for independence which members must observe, of the desired skills profiles, as well as the distribution of roles among the general management and the board of directors.This summary of a directed study submitted in August 2017, seeks to return to the major analyses that have answered this question: after the bill was passed, what organizational dynamics were observed within the MNBAQ, MAC and MCQ?
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".