Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dès la fin du XIXe siècle, les dispositifs muséographiques se diversifient afin de faire appel aux émotions. On retrouve dans bon nombre de projets scénographiques actuels cette intention d’offrir aux publics une expérience forte et mémorable. Le fait de solliciter l’affectivité des visiteurs serait-il le moyen de leur permettre une expérience muséale optimale ?Malgré la généralisation des études de publics dans les années 1990, peu d’études sont en mesure de répondre à cette interrogation.Cet article présente un travail de recherche de Master de l’École du Louvre s’insérant dans le programme lancé en 1997 à l’Université de Montréal sous la direction de Colette Dufresne-Tassé et visant à étudier systématiquement le fonctionnement psychologique des visiteurs adulte à travers leurs discours recueillis pendant la visite.Il développe un instrument de recherche pré-existant afin de tenter de saisir la nature, la place et le rôle des phénomènes affectifs au cours de l’expérience muséale.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".