Arm's Length and 'Hand-shake' Policies: Community Arts Alternatives to Outcome-based Development (Insights from Brazil, Bulgaria, and South Africa)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of arts and culture in the discourses and practices of 'sustainable development' can be a local, grounded phenomenon in communities around the world using holistic 'hand-shake' cultural policies. The idea of 'hand-shake' policy is derived from a comparative analysis of the Western (Anglo-Saxon) arm's length policy model of project-based funding, which focuses more on quality (aesthetics and outcomes) products than on ongoing art programs, with policy models developed in Bulgaria and Brazil that privilege the regularity and sustainability of social interactions/processes, where nationally distributed basic institutional support for community cultural centres secures the base infrastructure for systems of creative social exchanges. When planning sustainable cities is based on an integrated system of social relations and cultural codes, a community cultural centre in every neighbourhood (potentially the focal point of localized cultural policies) can serve as the community nucleus where anyone can discover and develop creative potential. Such centres, working within national networks of community cultural centres, should be understood as just as essential and socially useful as the community school and the community health centre. Combinations of three main factors that determine the grounding of cultural policies and NGO projects – looseness, lapse of time, and locality – underlie this transition and the long-term qualitative measurement of participatory processes rather than project outcomes. The dilemmas involved in quantifying intangible project outcomes like emotional, psychological, and social transformations resulting from community arts participation inform the need for alternative and/or complementary indicators of outcomes, that support strategies for sustainable socio-cultural development.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".