Discontinuous impulses: Australia's self-representation at international expositions 1924-1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australian exhibits at international exhibitions from the early to the mid-twentieth century demonstrate a close link between economic circumstance and cultural representations of nation. Before WWII Two Australian exhibits are minor components of British pavilions and stress Australia’s primary producer status in a seemingly complementary, bilateral relationship where Britain took the lead role of manufacturing nation. The inclusion of conservative pastoral landscape painting in exhibits reinforces the importance of rural production despite government backing for industrialization while depicting Australian culture and society as regionally focused and closed to modernizing influences. Australia did not participate in international exhibitions between 1939 and 1967, only returning to this international arena at Expo ’67, Montreal, planned during Australia’s economic disengagement from Britain. Expo ’67 was the first time Australia exhibited in its own pavilion overseas as an independent nation, its pavilion and a subsequent one at Expo ’70, Osaka, stressing the country’s scientific, industrial and technological ability, their striking modernist design underscoring a capacity for creativity and innovation. Where postwar Liberal governments blocked the participation of modernist artists in official international art exhibitions, at Expo ’67 and Expo ’70 segments of government harnessed the stylistic rhetoric of modernist art and design in complex ways to modulate perceptions of Australia among emerging trading partners and foreign investors. Australian exhibits at world exhibitions thus reveal the mutability of national self-representations and suggest that the story of Australian culture in the twentieth-century is one of contiguous, non-uniform simultaneities rather than single, directional 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".