MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209606639

Visual artists and creative labour: intellectual property rights as a basis for individual and collective interventions

2015· article· en· W2209606639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C Macneill, C Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Access (University of Melbourne) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Labour OrganizationAustralian Government
KeywordsNegotiationExhibitionIntellectual propertyArt worldSociologyInclusion (mineral)Visual artsValue (mathematics)InstitutionWork (physics)Art galleryArtAestheticsPolitical scienceLawSocial scienceEngineeringArt historyPerformance artComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice of visual art is often regarded as an individual and autonomous form of labour. While the making of the art work might occur in isolation, its public exhibition will often bring artists together in negotiation with an art institution. This article analyses two such occasions: artists whose work is exhibited in the National Gallery of Canada, and those who were selected for inclusion in the 2014 Sydney Biennale. We argue that these case studies demonstrate the way in which visual artists, at a certain point in the value chain, acquire greater power to negotiate, frequently by invoking intellectual property and ancillary rights in their artwork.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva Access (University of Melbourne)Same topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207