MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327964570 · doi:10.1386/jaac.2.3.197_1

Imagining relational violence: On taking a visual turn

2011· article· en· W2327964570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katarzyna Kosmala

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Arts & Communities · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionRepresentation (politics)NegotiationSociologyFraming (construction)PoliticsAmbivalenceContext (archaeology)Relation (database)Power (physics)Media studiesVisual artsAestheticsSocial psychologyArtPsychologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The objective of this article is to problematize a notion of relational violence, also referred to as violence in domestic realms or relationship-based violence, drawing on its representation in the visual arts. The discussed examples illustrating the dynamics of violence include two American artists: Barbara Kruger's project organized in Glasgow in the Gallery of Modern Art in association with Amnesty International in 2005, and Bruce Nauman's video installations Anthro-Socio (1992) exhibited as part of his solo exhibition at Musee d'Art Contemporain in Montreal in 2007, and Violent Incident (1986) from the Tate Collection. Drawing on visual representation, I reflect on how different ways of narrating can either encourage or discourage our understandings of violence and the promotion of equality more generally. Framing the ways institutional power operates, here in relation to an organization of my academic role and other roles, involves a production and negotiation of meanings as well as embodiment. In such a context, reflections emerge with regard to my own positioning, concerning ambivalence about the politics of representation and the representation of the politics in the processes that are observed, analysed and showcased.

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 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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Arts & CommunitiesSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207