MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000954150

How Museums Engage Visitors’ Self-Efficacy

2025· dissertation· en· W7000954150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternCitizen scienceNatural (archaeology)Task (project management)Contextual inquiryData collection
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Museums have played an educational role for over two centuries. In the last 50+ years, science centres have become particularly captivating spaces for the public to physically engage with the natural world and other learning opportunities. What is not clear is if this experience is felt as fulsomely by those with low inquiry self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s abilities to be successful at a particular task (Bandura, 1977). If visitors have low inquiry self-efficacy, then, for example, they may not see any purpose in applying effort to engaging with exhibits at the museum. This study attempts to understand museum visitor experiences by collecting surveys from 100 participants and interview data from 15 participants, and uses this data to characterize the AstraZeneca Human Edge exhibits at the Ontario Science Centre. This study also explores why certain exhibits elicit engagement, and tries to identify if those exhibits and features that cause low inquiry self-efficacy visitors to engage are consistent with hospitality, an ethic of welcoming all visitors, without expectation or condition of who they should be (Derrida, 2005). The research results show that: 1) the length of a visit may vary with the visitor’s inquiry self-efficacy; 2) the types of exhibits visitors interact with, and why they choose those exhibits, varies with the visitor’s inquiry self-efficacy; and 3) by considering and interpreting these differences through a conceptual lens of hospitality, I provide suggestions for how exhibit design and arrangement fosters engagement from all visitors, including low inquiry self-efficacy visitors. Better exhibit design could lead to visitor engagement that raises their inquiry self-efficacy, with lasting impacts on achieving success with their future goals. I provide suggestions for future exhibit design that may encourage engagement by making the exhibits more hospitable, that is, open to whoever the visitor is, providing them the opportunity to make their own learning in their own context.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207