Quand le musée prend soin: le regard du personnel de la médiation muséale sur une expérience d’école au musée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine l’expérience du personnel de la médiation muséale dans un projet d’école au musée mené avec l’école alternative Le Vitrail à Montréal (2022-2023). S’appuyant sur le processus du care tel que développé par Joan Tronto, il analyse les relations entre le personnel de la médiation muséale, le personnel enseignant et les élèves. L’étude met en évidence la création de liens significatifs, une motivation scolaire accrue et une appropriation progressive des espaces muséaux par les élèves. Il met également en avant certaines tensions, inhérentes au processus du care, notamment en raison des besoins variés des personnes impliquées, du manque de ressources et des contraintes logistiques. En repensant le musée comme un espace relationnel, ce texte souligne l’importance d’inscrire la relation au musée dans la durée pour développer des pratiques muséales inclusives et adaptées aux besoins des publics scolaires.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".