L’accueil au musée des publics en situation de handicap ou le long chemin vers un musée accessible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new definition of a museum put forward in 2022 by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) affirms the importance of a museum “open to the public, accessible and inclusive” and that “fosters diversity and sustainability”: the principles of accessibility, inclusion and participation are becoming a requirement as new norms for a museal institution and the evolution of its role and missions. They embody the necessary conditions to dust off the image of a cloistered museum, disconnected from its publics, and to build a welcoming museum space for active engagement with all publics. Still, beyond the affirmation of this political discourse, accessibility, whether seen by professionals as an injunction or a conviction, indeed an opportunity, is lagging; a study conducted in France in 2017 on accessibility to the culture for people with disabilities shows a number of difficulties in accessing culture, which throws the museal offer into question: how is the accessible offer structured for visitors with disabilities? And what is its participatory scope? To answer these questions, this article proposes to outline the content and evolution of this offer. Thus, firstly, the aim is to describe and present the sociopolitical and ideological context of museum accessibility in France; it looks back at the influence of cultural democratization as well as the emergence of inclusive pressure and accessibility, bolstered since 1975 by a legal framework. Secondly, the article will focus on the evolution of welcoming publics with disabilities and the variety of arrangements made to unite accessibility and participation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".