Plural public funding and Canada's contemporary art market system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article address public funding, free markets, and contemporary art in Canada as shaped by forces integral to the formation of Canada as a nation state and its continual development. Canada has a network of publicly funded institutions in support of contemporary art. Public funding for the arts is direct and plural: it operates at three levels of government – federal, provincial and municipal – and is distributed by government departments and arts councils. Canadian institutions in receipt of public funding relevant to contemporary art include art schools, artist-run centres, non-collecting exhibition venues and art museums. A perception that this creates and maintains a circular system for contemporary art that is co-ordinated via state funding is reconsidered. In addition, it is misleading to consider a boundary divide, with state and not-for-profit sector organizations separated from private and commercial ones. The role of art market intermediaries, namely contemporary art dealers (or gallerists), who are responsible for representing artists and promoting their work for the first time (on the primary art market) to collectors, is integral. It also represents one measure of the overall health of Canada's contemporary art market system. Attention is drawn to the situation where few contemporary art dealers based in Canada have the economic resources to compete in the international arena, with one consequence being the adoption of non-Canadian dealers to represent leading contemporary artists from Canada. The emergence of a generation of aboriginal artists living and working in Canada is another development, one that speaks to the hybrid representations of Canadian identity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".