MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063810809 · doi:10.7202/1005751ar

Objective Landscapes: The Mediated Evidence of Repeat Photography

2011· article· en· W2063810809 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniques · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotographyWitnessObjectivity (philosophy)IdeologyNegativeVisual artsAestheticsSociologyArtEpistemologyLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repeat photography, which involves re-photographing a location from the same vantage point, has become a common method to document the changes occurring in the landscape. Artists, ecologists, geologists and anthropologists alike have employed this practice. What unites these disciplines across great ideological and cultural distances is their understanding of photography as a truthful witness to the passage of time. This position places great value on the mechanical observation of the camera and the objectivity of the photographer. The article focuses on one example of this practice: the Rocky Mountain Repeat Photography Project , an academic research project, illustrates the complexities inherent in claiming photography, or the photographer, as a neutral observer free of ideological and cultural concerns.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.278 · 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