MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vers de nouveaux musées « hybrides »

2023· article· fr· W4366698229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie Chapman, Marcelo Huernos, Joanne Hyppolite, Karen Moeskops, Zineb Sedira, Sebastien Tyrakowski, Emily S. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueHommes & migrations · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Table ronde réunissant Marie Chapman, directrice du Musée canadien de l’immigration (Halifax), Marcelo Huernos, chercheur au MUNTREF-Musée de l’immigration (Buenos Aires), Joanne Hyppolite, conservatrice de la diaspora africaine au Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture (Washington D. C. Unis), Karen Moeskops, directrice du Red Star Line Museum (Anvers), Zineb Sedira, artiste, Sebastien Tyrakowski, directeur adjoint du Musée de l’émigration de Gdynia (Pologne), modérée par Emily Miller, directrice des apprentissages et des partenariats au Musée de la migration (Londres).Les musées de migrations font face au défi de la mise en récit des histoires qui ont façonné les pays et les cultures à travers les siècles. Les archives, les traces des trajectoires migratoires faites d’objets et de récits personnels, mais aussi le recours à l’art contemporain contribuent à rendre accessibles et à révéler ces histoires. L’interdisciplinarité et le croisement des regards sont au cœur des réflexions des musées de migrations. Tout concourt au décloisonnement et à la transversalité des disciplines dans un équilibre entre médiation et esthétique, entre les différents types d’œuvres et d’objets, la participation de la société civile, les choix scénographiques et pédagogiques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHommes & migrationsSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207