Penser et nommer l’inclusion : un horizon pour questionner les pratiques professionnelles dans le champ muséal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a national observatory and think tank on museums and heritage, the Office for Museum Cooperation and Information (OCIM) has for forty years conducted national, territorial and thematic surveys on the development of museums, heritage, and scientific, technical and industrial culture (PCSTI). It is dedicated to understanding how institutional and professional practices evolve and what are the new and emerging trends in the field, and to supporting museum professionals and institutions in developing their projects and missions. This article presents the first results of the surveys “Approches sociales et inclusives des musées et des lieux de culture scientifique” (Social and inclusive approaches to museums and scientific cultural spaces) (2020, n =74) and “Chiffres clés des acteurs du PCSTI” (Key statistics in the field of PCSTI) (2021, data 2020 – n = 196), both intended to show how public engagement is an integral part of professional practices in mediation in the field of PCSTI in France. The two surveys reveal different ways in which inclusion and participation are embodied in the museum context, with their strengths and limitations. The article reflects on the place of ideas such as inclusion in the design of public engagement programs and strategies and how in recent years the vocabulary has evolved from using expressions like “facing the publics” or “for the publics” to the more inclusive “with the publics.” Who do we include under the umbrella expression “with the publics”? What methods can be used –whether new or not– to encourage public participation and inclusion in museums? How do these methods impact on professional mediation practices, exhibition design, management, and more generally museum thinking? Participatory museum, inclusive museum, citizen museum, museum as forum: what are the possible developments? This article provides insight on the relationship between the museum and the public, their roles and levels of engagement; whether the hope of “being inclusive” or “more inclusive” not as a turnkey project but very much as the spark that ignites a gradual shift with lasting impacts.
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 | 0.042 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".