Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionIn 2007 I 'accidentally' became an art student at the Nova Scotia College of Art & Design and recently graduated with a Bachelor of Fine Art degree.The majority of my courses were studio courses where the focus was making art.But I also had to take traditional lecture type courses in art history and art criticism.What struck me about those courses was the fragmented and disorderly nature of the study of art.I figured that the messiness of art studies could be ordered along the lines of Bernard Lonergan's eight functional specialties.I had taken a stab at ordering legal studies so why couldn't I do the same for art studies? 2 The following text is a version of a paper I submitted for a course in Twentieth Century Art History.A glance at the first three pages of "Course Descriptions" in the Nova Scotia College of Art & Design's (NSCAD) Academic Calendar indicates the range of the field commonly called Art History and Critical Studies.Courses cover diverse disciplines: fine arts, craft, design, photography, and film.Survey courses in Ancient Art, Medieval Art, Renaissance and Baroque Art, Nineteenth-Century Art, Twentieth Century Art, and Canadian Art cover different historical periods.Other courses cover the histories of craft and design.The history of photography and film are the concerns of others.Courses such as Modern and Contemporary Art Theory and Criticism, Postcolonialism and Craft, and Modernism and Postmodernism address contemporary issues.The critical side of Art History is stressed in Film History and Criticism and in Introduction to Art Theory and Criticism.Philosophical issues are dealt with in courses such as The Philosophy of the Arts and Crafts Movement and Marxism and Aesthetic Theory.Two other courses 1 I would like to thank Mike Shute and Philip McShane for commenting on versions of this paper.2 For instance, see Bruce Anderson, "The Nine Lives of Legal Interpretation," Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis, 5 (2010), 30-36.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.005 |
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".