MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984401371 · doi:10.3828/bjcs.22.1.1

Tradition and Technology in Contemporary Canadian Printmaking

2009· article· en· W1984401371 on OpenAlex
Christopher Rolfe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Canadian Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrafts, Textile, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrintmakingHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article will seek to introduce readers to an aspect of Canadian cultural life that is perhaps little known – printmaking – and, in particular, to three major figures. It will explore how their work is representative of new, less traditional approaches to printmaking. Most people think of printmaking as a 'traditional' art and it is true that traditional forms still have an important place. However, printmakers have always been happy to adopt the latest commercial innovations, and adapt their traditional skills and concepts to take account of technological advances. Much contemporary printmaking makes use of new technologies, especially digital print techniques. This article will discuss contemporary printmakers Richard Lacroix, Barbara Zeigler and Wayne Eastcott, all of whom have introduced new technologies into their work and who, in certain cases, may be said to be at the cutting edge. The article will also demonstrate how the work of these artists, although individualistic, reflects both their bel...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.164 · 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