MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413458028 · doi:10.15407/socium2025.02.174

Museums as media: the social and communicative aspect of museum practices

2025· article· en· W4413458028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ihor Rushchenko

Bibliographic record

VenueUkrainian society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaMuseologySociologyVisual artsArtComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article conceptualises museums as a distinct form of media. The author tries to examine how contemporary museums are transformed under the pressure of addressing urgent socio-communicative challenges. The study is theoretically founded on the ideas of the Toronto School of Communication, particularly the works of Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan. Within this framework, classical museums are interpreted as media transmitting cultural and historical messages; they are characterised as time-biased and “cold” media. Furthermore, the article describes museums as “passive” and “integrative” media. It is argued that the historical trajectory of museums reflects a development from time-oriented to space-oriented media (space-biased media), and from “cold” to “hot” media. The communicative environment of museums is becoming increasingly active through the introduction of various communicative technologies. It is described historically, how the communicative space of museums has undergone several revolutionary transformations. Firstly, there was the transition from private closed collections to public exhibitions. Secondly, there has been the qualitative diversification of museum profiles and the quantitative expansion of museum collections. Thirdly, museums have expanded the internal media through the implementation of immersive and interactive technologies, facilitated by the convergence of different media forms. Fourthly, there has been the external media expansion and globalisation of museum communications through the emergence of the “Internet galaxy”. The complexity of decoding museum messages is also examined. Decoding is interpreted through the lens of symbolic interactionism as the necessity of understanding and immersing oneself in the symbolic world and meanings conveyed by cultural artifacts. Following Riepl’s Law, it is further posited that virtual museums have found their own niche and are unlikely to supplant classical museums.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.036
Scholarly communication0.0200.013
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUkrainian societySame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207