MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Curatorial Anthropocene: An Analysis of Canadian Museums’ Engagement with the Climate Crisis—Exploring Perspectives on Precedent and Barriers

2025· article· en· W4412969618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lenka Tomlinson, Tarah Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of the Arts in Society Annual Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropoceneEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Museums hold the power to influence and educate the public on accessible levels, using multimedia displays and bite-sized pieces of information for digestible intake of scientific understanding and innovation. The intergenerational, and more accessible manner of museums holds the ability to educate larger sects of the public, outside of academic and professional settings, in where understanding of the world, and fun are intertwined. Education through museum displays and exhibits is a voluntary, willing act of participation, from which individuals of all backgrounds and ages are able to learn, with museum structures considered to be trusted, sound institutions. In an evolving social climate, the Canadian museums sector must look to the unique power it holds, as pedagogical institutions of knowledge, to expand beyond traditionalist methodology, and engage with education, community, advocacy, and the climate crisis. This study thematically analyses the perspectives of Canadian professionals in the field, looking at what has happened, what is happening, what ought to happen, and what barriers stand in the way. In comparison with existing, global literature, we see the Canadian museum sector to be placed in an in-between, in where appropriate dismantling of barriers may alleviate stressors, creating the momentum for urgency with climate to be integrated on a widespread scale, through standardization of institutional frameworks, along with paradigmatic shifts within the sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0410.020
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of the Arts in Society Annual ReviewSame topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207