MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380785998 · doi:10.1080/10645578.2023.2218790

Chinese Science Museum Educators’ Perspectives on the Contradictions between Their Practice and Visitors’ Expectations

2023· article· en· W4380785998 on OpenAlexaff
Jiao Ji, David P. Anderson, Xinchun Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueVisitor Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedSociocultural evolutionVisitor patternMuseum informaticsPedagogySociologyContext (archaeology)Museum educationMuseologyThematic analysisScience educationQualitative researchSocial scienceVisual artsAnthropologyArtGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Science museum educators’ perceptions of the relationship between their professional practices and visitors’ expectations affect the formulation of their self-identity and their educational practices as museum education professionals. Situated in the sociocultural context of Chinese science museums this phenomenological study explored the perceived contradictions between museum educators’ and visitors’ expectations from the educators’ standpoint. In this study, 23 museum educators from five Chinese science museums participated in face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Informed by Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) the outcomes suggest four thematic contradictions within the activity systems composed of museum educators and visitors. This study demonstrates the sociocultural complexities of educator-visitor relationships and offers suggestions for building a collaborative learning community for museum education in Chinese science museums. Moreover, the outcomes have relevance for other museums situated in similar cultures around the world where science museums and museum education are a relatively new and developing enterprise.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueVisitor StudiesSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207