Darwin and the evolution revolution : audiences, culture, worldview, transformative learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although in current practice many cultural institutions are collaborating, sharing and promoting their work on an international scale, visitor studies in internationally travelling exhibitions has been very limited. Performing audience research in the American Museum of Natural History’s travelling exhibition Darwin: The Evolution Revolution at two partner venues, the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto and the Natural History Museum London, the thesis establishes a new line of inquiry, addressing the cultural aspects of communication and learning through the exhibition medium within a novel context. Furthermore, the thesis focus on the influence of culture, worldview and perspectives in evolution learning and the evaluation of transformative learning in the museum required the creation of new methods of audience research. The empirical research of both museum staff and local adult audiences in London and Toronto demonstrated the critical influence of culture on communication and meaning-making in the context of internationally travelling exhibitions. The study also provided significant evidence of the interrelationship of culture, worldview, perspectives and assumptions and their vital role in transformative learning. Moreover, the evaluation of transformative learning served to establish that visitors had engaged in critical reflection as well as subjective reframing, which leads to perspective transformation. Further research is required in order to provide a basis of comparison and to build a significant body of knowledge on the influence of culture on museum communication and learning in order to effectively guide future practices. Although the thesis intentionally focuses on the analysis of transformative learning and perspective transformation in evolutionary biology, the approach to learning and research methods proposed have a much wider application in audience research of exhibits that present issues of significant social and cultural relevance such as difficult history, social equality, diversity and social justice, as well as in art, history and ethnography 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".