Taking the Romance out of Extraction: Contemporary Canadian Artists and the Subversion of the Romantic/Extractive Gaze
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in many nation-states, Canadian modernity viewed nature through two seemingly opposed gazes: the extractive and the romantic. In many ways, the Romantic movement was a response to the de-humanizing effects of industrial extraction, a process that summarily stripped the natural world of spirit and meaning. For many working within this representational tradition, however, the search for ontological meaning was a question of developing techniques and technologies that will allow us to “see” the spiritual qualities of nature, to see that it can also be mined, assayed, and sold as a spiritual resource that will provide us with metaphysical comfort in the cold and meaningless universe created by the extractive gaze. In this essay, we examine the work of four contemporary Canadian artists who deploy postmodernist strategies of citation and parody to reveal the hidden connection between Canadian landscape art and extractive processes. In so doing, their work seeks to destroy the comforting and familiar pleasures of the extractive and romantic gazes and force Canadians to develop new ways of thinking about our relationship to nature.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.067 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".