MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542119438

Envoicing Silent Objects: Art and Literature at the Site of the Canadian Landscape

2008· article· en· W1542119438 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Richard Brock

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of environmental education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary, Cultural, Historical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildernessPaintingNarrativeLandscape paintingWhite (mutation)Art historyHumanityTRACE (psycholinguistics)HistoryAestheticsVisual artsArtArchaeologyLiteraturePhilosophyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conjunction of art, literatureand place in this special issue provides an occasion for considering the intersection of visual art and the literary narrative at the site of that most definitive of place-markers in the history of Canadian nationhood, the landscape painting. As characterized by the iconic, overtly nationalist works of Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven in the early part of the twentieth century, Canadian placeconsists, very precisely, of landscape—no more, no less. To gaze into a painting by Thomson, Harris, Lismer, Varley, Macdonald or Jackson is to be confronted by an icy, forbidding and—crucially—silentworld. If there isany trace of humanity to be found here, it can perhaps be located only in the eerily humanoid form of a windswept tree, a stand-in for the pioneer-settler engaged in ceaseless combat with a wilderness every bit as white and hardy as he. This tree seems perpetually on the brink of succumbing to the elements that continually besiege it, and wecan be certain that, wereit tofall, it would make no sound.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0480.028
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of environmental educationSame topicLiterary, Cultural, Historical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207