MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116110259 · doi:10.1002/ocea.5103

<scp>Ő</scp>mie Art and<scp>Ő</scp>mie Artists©

2015· article· en· W2116110259 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueOceania · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPaintingAsideContext (archaeology)EthnographyOriginalityArtValuation (finance)Visual artsSociologyHistoryAnthropologyLiteratureArchaeologyQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The bark cloth paintings produced by the women of Ő mie Artists© have in recent years drawn acclaim in the art world for their originality and vibrancy. The artists’ cooperative follows the organisational structures of some A ustralian A boriginal art movements, as well as the channels of distribution and valuation of this indigenous art. In spite of what appears to be a major adjustment of traditional cultural forms, Ő mie bark cloth paintings are highly valued for their authenticity and the people themselves have been presented in art‐writing as remote and relatively untouched by outside influences. Aside from providing some historical and ethnographic background for this small group of people living in O ro P rovince in P apua N ew G uinea, the article argues that this particular portrayal of the community and their culture is a product of the meeting of long‐term Ő mie aspirations to money and development in interaction with a particular Australian vision of what constitutes authenticity in the context of its former colony, P apua N ew G uinea.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.145 · 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