Polyptych construction as historical methodology: an intertextual approach to the stories of Central Technical School’s past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adopting the lens of “new histories” as the basis for my inquiry into the institutional legacy of the art program at Toronto’s Central Technical School (CTS), I created a methodological framework informed by the traditional art form of the polyptych, in which many panels are joined together to show and tell multilayered stories connected to a central theme, to demonstrate visually how stories are interrelated, and to present openings to other stories. In polyptychs, I found a means to express both the form and content of my research in ways that are artful, permeable, and conductive. Through Prezi, a digital presentation and storytelling platform, I discovered how the polyptych can become three-dimensional. The resulting series of intertextual expressions create a portrait of the complex, expansive, and multigenerational stories that make up the history of CTS. This article describes how I came to see the polyptych as a methodological frame by unpacking its historic roots; by exploring how it operates in contemporary historical research; and by reflecting on how my identity as an artist, teacher, and researcher influences the way I organize stories within this 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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".