Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dozen years after I first asked the question “is Canada postcolonial?,” I have returned to consider it again. Of more concern now than the original question itself, however, is the productive set of questions it raises. These questions form the heart of this paper and are, I argue, at the core of contemporary postcolonial discourse in Canada: (1) What is the triangulated relationship between art, politics and place?; (2) What responsibility does an artist have to her subject matter?; (3)What are the ethics of representation?; (4) Who speaks for whom?; (5) Who profits?; and (6) How then to remember? To engage these serious questions, I turn to the controversy surrounding the cancellation of an art exhibition at the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver. In early 2011, Pamela Masik was set to launch “The Forgotten” project, an exhibition of the portraits of sixty-nine women who were missing from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Citing “serious concerns” raised by the victims’ families and community groups, the museum cancelled the show (Museum of Anthropology 2011). This was a controversy over the public role of art and the role of art in public spaces. It was also a pivotal case for considering cultural memory and victims’ rights in the process of memorializing. This paper examines the exhibition and its cancellation and, by extension, art and public memory in a postcolonial framework.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.063 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".