La responsabilité sociale des « entreprises muséales » à l’épreuve des dispositifs numériques : entre activisme et socioblanchiment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La dérive commerciale du tournant communicationnel observée depuis une décennie au sein de maintes institutions culturelles, qui a conduit certains protagonistes du milieu à vouloir recentrer le fonctionnement des musées sur leur mission sociale, traçait une voie balisée par le rendement et la notoriété en contexte de concurrence, reléguant les actions d’inclusion socioculturelle au second plan. La mobilisation de dispositifs numériques qui, par définition, rendent les établissements plus accessibles aux publics en retrait de l’offre semble néanmoins donner l’occasion d’attester d’un engagement social sincère. Or, l’examen des pratiques mises en œuvre en 2021 par le laboratoire de médiation numérique PRISME au Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal, qui visaient à créer des expériences muséales pour des élèves à besoins particuliers et des personnes aînées isolées, montre que l’initiative demeure largement symbolique malgré la forte publicisation dont elle fait l’objet, dans la mesure où les actions qui en découlent bénéficient d’abord à la communauté professionnelle des musées. On peut ainsi interroger cette approche au regard de la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise, qui promeut la prise en compte sur une base volontaire des enjeux sociaux, environnementaux et éthiques de ses activités, sans compter que la voie numérique ne fait pas consensus quant aux effets sociaux qu’elle induit et qu’elle accapare parfois une part démesurée des ressources disponibles. Qui plus est, le financement reçu du Gouvernement du Québec pour mettre en branle ces pratiques accentue l’écart de richesse entre les musées blockbusters et les autres sans modifier sensiblement le profil des publics. The commercial drift of the communicational turn observed over the last decade in many cultural institutions has led certain protagonists in the field to want to refocus the operation of museums on their social mission, paving a way marked out by performance and notoriety in a context of competition, and relegating actions for socio-cultural inclusion to the background. The mobilization of digital devices, which by definition make establishments more accessible to audiences who have withdrawn from the offer, nevertheless seems to provide an opportunity to demonstrate a sincere social commitment. However, an examination of the practices implemented in 2021 by the PRISME digital mediation laboratory at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, which aimed to create museum experiences for special-needs students and isolated seniors, shows that the initiative remains largely symbolic despite the strong publicity it receives, insofar as the resulting actions primarily benefit the professional museum community. This approach can also be questioned in the light of corporate social responsibility, which promotes the voluntary consideration of social, environmental and ethical issues in its activities, not to mention the fact that the digital route does not meet with consensus in terms of the social effects it induces, and sometimes takes up a disproportionate share of available resources. Furthermore, the funding received from the Quebec government to set these practices in motion accentuates the wealth gap between blockbuster museums and others, without significantly altering the profile of the public.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".