Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cabe, nesta introdução, apresentar um panorama do pensamento museológico internacional, que pretendemos basear nos documentos do Rio de Janeiro (1958)7; no de Santiago (1972), que formalizou a introdução do conceito de museu integral; no de Quebec (1984), ao qual coube a sistematização dos princípios da Nova Museologia; e no de Caracas (1992), que realizou uma avaliação crítica desse percurso, reafirmando o museu como canal de comunicação. Este recorte privilegia documentos que constituíram três dos principais marcos do movimento da Nova Museologia – Cartas de Santiago, Quebec e Caracas – e o documento final do Seminário Regional da UNESCO sobre a Função Educativa dos Museus, do Rio de Janeiro, que inaugura uma linha de seminários regionais e a perspectiva de pensar a Museologia a partir de olhares não europeus. São documentos fundamentais para o entendimento da renovação no cenário museológico internacional e, notadamente, na América Latina, onde a maior parte deles tomou corpo.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.182 | 0.101 |
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".