MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582833121 · doi:10.3138/jcs.46.1.5

The Totemic Art of Small-Town Canada

2012· article· en· W1582833121 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Stymeist

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLandscape and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)Articulation (sociology)Representation (politics)PopulationTourismIdentity (music)Ethnic groupHistoryArchaeologyEthnologySociologyAnthropologyAestheticsArtLawDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The monumental statues of the Canadian small town are a well-recognized folk art form. Communally sponsored and constructed, town monuments announce the presence of a local social system and are the symbolic expression of some key aspect of a settlement’s social life. Stylistically diverse and varied in subject, they speak of nature, history, ethnicity, economic activity, the regional origins of townspeople, and the achievements of residents. In some sense sacred, town monuments may commemorate an ancestral pioneer population or venerate a cultural heritage, a prized articulation with the land, or a characteristic occupation. More than mere tourist attractions, town monuments make perceptible an intangible set of social relations and are sites for various community events and celebrations. Proclamations of identity are encoded in town monuments, and the structure of signs that results from the creation of each is ultimately a system of totemic representation. Collectively, town monuments facilitate the appreciation of local difference along with a concomitant recognition of the shared presence of community and have come to establish thereby a contemporary form of totemism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicLandscape and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207