Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-9
Exploring the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Museums: A Case Study Within the Context of Its Applicability to Collections Management of Documentation
Because museum collections deteriorate due to entropy, museums can preserve their collections by mitigating entropy through collections management. Dissociation is an effect of entropy that impacts the documents within collections. Digital transcription is a useful technique in mitigating that dissociation but may be unlikely due to a lack of resources as manual transcription is time consuming. Implementing artificial intelligence (AI) to transcribe documents automatically is examined as an alternative. The applicability of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is tested through the quantitative measurement of accuracy and efficiency using the documentation within an archaeological collection as a case study. Results indicate that the OCR program used in this research is not yet applicable to the collections management of documentation. Nevertheless, with the technology associated with OCR and its accessibility advancing at an accelerating rate, it is likely that OCR may become a cornerstone tool in the collections management of documentation in the near future.
Aguera y ArcasBlaise. 2022. “Do Large Language Models Understand Us?”Daedalus151 (2): 183–97.
2.
AllenRebeccaFordBenKennedyRyan J.2019. “Reclaiming the Research Potential of Archaeological Collections.” In New Life for Archaeological Collections, edited by AllenRebeccaFordBen, 1–28. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
3.
BülowAnnaStittJessicaBrokerhofAgnes. 2018. “I Can See Further Now: Preventative Conservation in a Changing Heritage World.”Studies in Conservation63 (1): 35–42.
4.
CannyJohn. 1986. “A Computational Approach to Edge Detection.”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence8 (6): 679–98.
5.
CCI. 2016. A Guide to Risk Management of Cultural Heritage. UAE: ICCROM-ATHAR Regional Conservation Center.
6.
CCI. 2018. Caring for Archaeological Collections. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Conservation Institute, 2018.
7.
CCI. 2019. Agent of Deterioration: Dissociation. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Conservation Institute, 2023.
8.
DallasCostis. 2016. “Jean-Claude Gardin on Archaeological Data, Representation and Knowledge: Implications for Digital Archaeology.”Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory23 (2): 305–330.
9.
DavisdonChristina. 2009. “Transcription: Imperatives for Qualitative Research.”International Journal of Qualitative Methods8 (2): 1–52.
10.
DuanYanqingEdwardsJohn StevenDwivediYogesh Kumar. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence for Decision Making in the Era of Big Data–Evolution, Challenges, and Research Agenda.”International Journal of Information Managemnt48: 63–71.
11.
EPRS. 2020. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Issues and Initiatives. Brussels: European Union.
12.
EversJeanine. 2011. “From the Past into the Future. How Technological Developments Change Our Ways of Data Collection, Transcription and Analysis.”Forum Qualitative Social Research12 (38): 1–32.
13.
GéronAurélien. 2019. Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras & TensorFlow. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
14.
HaenleinMichaelKaplanAndrea. 2019. “A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: On the Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Intelligence.”California Management Review61 (4): 5–14.
15.
JohnsonEileen. 2010. A Multi-Component Rim Site Overlooking Yellowhouse Canyon on the Llano Estacado: The 2002-2003 Field Seasons Volume III. Lubbock Lake Landmark Quaternary Research Center Series: 17. Lubbock: Museum of Texas Tech University.
16.
KasneciEnkelejdaSeßlerKathrinKüchemannStefanBannertMariaDementievaDarynaFischerFrankGasserUrs, et al. 2023. “ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education.”EdArXiv. doi:10:35542/osf.io/5er8f.
17.
LoprestiDaniel. 2009. “Optical Character Recognition Errors and Their Effects on Natural Language Processing.”International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition 12: 1–10.
18.
LymanR. Lee. 2012. “A Historical Sketch on the Concepts of Archaeological Association, Context, and Provenience.”Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory19 (2): 207–240.
19.
MemonJamshedSamiMairaRizwanAhmed Khan. 2020. “Handwritten Optical Character Recognition (OCR): A Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review (SLR).”arXiv1–39. doi:10.1109/access.2020.3012542.
20.
MurphyOonaghVillaespesaElena. 2020. The Museum + AI Network. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.
21.
RomeroVerónicaBoschVicenteHernándezCelioVidalEnriqueSánchezJoan Andreu. 2017. “A Historical Document Handwriting Transcription End-to-End System.” Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis: 8th Iberian Conference, IbPria, edited by AlexandreLuisSanchezJose SalvadorRodriguesJoao M.F., 149–57. Faro: Springer International Publishing.
22.
SchuettpelzEricFrandsenPaulDikowRebeccaBrownAbelOrliSylviaPetersMelindaMetalloAdamFunkVickiDorrLaurence. 2017. “Applications of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks to Digitized Natural History Collections.”Biodiversity Data Journal5: 1–9.
23.
SimmonsJohnMuñoz-SabaYaneth. 2003. “The Theoretical Bases of Collections Management.”Collection Forum18 (1–2): 38–49.
24.
ShenYiquiHeacockLauraEliasJonathanHentelKeith D.ReigBeatriuShihGeorgeMoyLinda. 2023. “ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords.”Radiology307 (2): e230163.
25.
Stokel-WalkerChris. 2023. “ChatGPT Listed as Author on Research Papers.”Nature613: 620–621.
26.
Stokel-WalkerChrisVan NoordenRichard. 2023. “The Promise and Peril of Generative AI.”Nature614: 214–216.
27.
ThorpH. Holden. 2023. “ChatGPT is Fun, but Not an Author.”Science379 (6630): 313.
28.
YoungHugh D.FreedmanRoger A.2007. University Physics with Modern Physics. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
