MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

(Re)mapping the Colonized Body: The Creative Interventions of Rebecca Belmore in the Cityscape

2011· article· en· W1487350634 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julie Nagam

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Indian Culture and Research Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCityscapePsychological interventionAnthropologyHistoryAestheticsSociologyVisual artsArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the performance work of Anishinaabeg artist Rebecca Belmore. It bridges her creative work with the living histories of the indigenous people that are part of the cities of Toronto and Vancouver. I argue that her performance work creates, records, and stores indigenous stories of place, creating a living archive. I show how the artist’s ability to use her body as a tool shifts the colonial gaze to a space that can communicate the link between the land and indigenous stories of place. In selected performances, Belmore’s body becomes a vessel, creating a visual and embodied text that narrates indigenous stories of place that confront the historical implications of space in Canada, which is colonized, racialized, and gendered. I argue that Belmore’s performance and installation work builds a geographic imagination that (re)maps the city space through her gendered, colonized body. This presence shifts the colonial gaze to challenge white settler ideologies in the occupation of space through indigenous stories of place. I argue that Belmore’s performances and installations are both the site and the sight of the colonized gendered body, which forces the viewer to be aware of the geopolitics of space.

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)0.004
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 score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0440.031
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Indian Culture and Research JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207