Bibliographic record
Abstract
In France the number of exhibitions that go beyond “exhibiting” is growing - if we consider “exhibiting” as “making visible”. Examples include the current range of exhibitions on offer such as: “Prière de toucher ! L’art et la matière” at the Musée d’arts de Nantes, “Toucher l’arc- en-ciel” at the centre Pompidou or the olfactory exhibition “Parfums d’Orient” on show at the Institut du Monde Arabe. This invitation to experience art in a way that is more than just visual, highly reveals the ambitious initiatives undertaken by museums since the 1980s to make themselves more accessible to people with visual disabilities. However, this article responds to the optimism of this observation by highlighting the conceptual errors commonly made when considering the notion of accessibility. The critical philosophy study that we have carried out on audiodescriptions in French museums has led us to formulate the idea of a disjunction between the mediation systems in place and the content that they disclose, being rarely adapted to the needs of such an audience. We propose here a critical reflection on the term “accessibility” in order to formulate a clearer conceptualisation of it: in order to avoid this disjunction, which blurs the access of audiences with visual disabilities to the aesthetic power of works of art; we focus on recent experimental models of sound mediation, whereby seeking to produce multi-sensory experiences seems to be a more effective vector of equality in the right and access to culture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".