MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329311361 · doi:10.5817/cejcs2005-5-8

Selected examples of the dialectic between landscape painting and landscape poetry in Canada : (case studies)

2005· article· en· W2329311361 on OpenAlex
Judit Molnár

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Central European journal of Canadian studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLandscape and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandscape paintingPoetryDialecticAestheticsPaintingGeographyArtHistoryArt historyEpistemologyLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The close relationship between painting and poetry has been long acknowledged by art historians and literary critics alike. It is not by accident that both painters and poets have responded to the specific nature of the variety of Northern landscapes on the Canadian artistic scene as well. Spatial knowledge has always been part and parcel of "Canadian existence", therefore, it serves as a source of inspiration for artistic expression creating moods in the viewers' psychic and mental responses to the environment. The paper focuses on selected works by the Group of Seven comparing them with a random choice of poems. The case studies are thematically arranged. They illustrate how the brushstrokes and their literary equivalents compose themselves into convincing evocations of landscapes.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.165 · 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