MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411157354 · doi:10.1080/10645578.2025.2480500

Conceptualizing the Dimensions of Organizational Evaluation Capacity in Art Museums: A Framework for Visitor Studies

2025· article· en· W4411157354 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Agnieszka Chalas

Bibliographic record

VenueVisitor Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVisitor patternMuseologyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceVisual artsArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If art museums are to conduct visitor studies in a way that both supports their needs and strategic goals and demonstrates their effectiveness and public value in today’s accountability climate, possessing adequate capacity to do so is and will undoubtedly continue to be paramount. In the relevant literature to date, discourse on capacity related to the conduct of visitor studies in museums has primarily centered around defining, assessing, and building the evaluative competencies of visitor studies professionals and their non-evaluator counterparts at an individual level. While important, recent scholarship suggests that even when individuals’ capacities increase, varied institutional factors can still impede evaluation’s enculturation, pointing to a critical need to simultaneously develop evaluation capacity at the individual (micro) and organizational (meso) levels. Frameworks such as the Visitor Studies Association’s Evaluator Competencies for Professional Development provide useful schemas outlining what capacity entails at an individual level and how it might further be strengthened over time. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to reduce the foregoing gap by presenting a conceptual framework for both understanding and assessing organizational evaluation capacity in art museums. The conceptual framework was both informed by a scoping review of the existing literature base and empirically validated through a multiple-phase pan-Canadian study into organizational-level capacity in the art museum sector. Findings from the validation study suggest that an art museum’s overall capacity for evaluation can be described through six sub-divided and interrelated dimensions (i.e., context and culture, demand for evaluation, resources & supports, capacity to do evaluation, capacity to use evaluation, and research & evaluation activities) organized under two main categories (i.e., influencing factors & capacity indicators). The proposed framework is likely to be useful to the growing number of art museums seeking to integrate evaluative thinking and practices into their organizational cultures.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.454
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.091 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisitor StudiesSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207