MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416608301 · doi:10.1177/14687976251396732

Tiny witnesses: Preschoolers’ embodied encounters with dark heritage and parental silence in a Chinese Art Museum

2025· article· en· W4416608301 on OpenAlexaff
Jiao Ji, David P. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueTourist Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDark tourismSilenceVisitor patternEmbodied cognitionExhibitionCultural heritageTourismHeritage tourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preschoolers, accompanied by their families, represent a highly under-researched demographic in dark heritage sites, due to the sensitive and challenging historical topics associated with these venues and exhibitions, as well as the ethical and methodological considerations pertinent to this unique visitor group. Based on a hermeneutic phenomenological methodological approach, this study utilized unobtrusive non-participatory observation and observational anecdotes to document the interactions of 29 families with 32 preschoolers at the Nanjing Massacre oil painting exhibition in a local Chinese art museum in the city of Changsha, China. The research findings reveal that preschoolers exhibited visceral cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to this artwork. In comparison to their active engagement with the artwork, parents responded with a relatively passive approach, often avoiding discussions of challenging topics with them. This study provides some exploratory evidence for understanding preschoolers’ experiences in dark tourism and offers insights for museums with dark heritage and similar public cultural settings to support preschooler families in a child-friendly manner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourist StudiesSame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207