Sharing the Museum: Rethinking Cultural Mediation and Museum Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In tune with society, museums are seen as agents of change and social dialogue and value practices promoting respect for diversity, equality, accessibility and the idea of social inclusion (Bada, 2022; Maczek & Meunier, 2020). Indeed, the multiple right to speak is increasingly present and recognized within museums and cultural institutions. However, it has not always been so. Pierre Bourdieu, one of the most influential researchers in the field of sociology of culture, pointed out that visitors of a lower socio-economic status feel they lack the knowledge required to appreciate museum exhibits. Although his work has been the subject of debate (Coulangeon & Duval, 2013), Bourdieu nevertheless seems to be the researcher who has most influenced the study of cultural inequalities. In retrospect, it can be said that in L'amour de l'art, which he co-authored with Darbel 55 years ago, Bourdieu does more than simply acknowledge the inefficiency of cultural distribution policies, according to Jacobi and Luckerhoff (2012), he was advocating for a nonexistence process in 1969: cultural mediation. Bourdieu with Darbel (1969) believe that love of art or, by extension, a taste for culture, is acquired, not innate. Education can therefore enable an individual to develop cultural competencies. Museums’ missions have changed and currently, North American establishments are adapting their educational efforts and offering distinct programs for unique audiences. This article is based on a survey of mediation professionals involved in the program entitled Sharing the Museum run by the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. It uses an inductive approach that features a qualitative data analysis. The museum stakeholders interviewed describe the mediator as someone who facilitates and guides encounters between visitors and artworks via various tools intended to offer these visitors greater autonomy. According to our study participants, it is possible to use cultural mediation to make legitimized forms of culture more accessible.
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 | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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".