Sharon Ann Musher.<i>Democratic Art: The New Deal’s Influence on American Culture</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The New Deal remains, as Sharon Ann Musher puts it, “the golden age” (213) of federal arts funding in the U.S. Beginning in May 1935, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) mounted work-relief projects (collectively known as Federal One) for almost forty thousand destitute writers, theater practitioners, musicians, and visual artists. Overlapping with that effort were the Treasury Department’s mural programs and the Resettlement Administration’s (RA) photography section. This support for art as legitimate labor had unprecedented geographical and conceptual breadth—project offices in every region, every state, and many municipalities across the country, and vastly differing degrees of artistic skill among employees—to the point that assembling a coherent analysis of the whole is a distinct challenge. The usual scholarly strategy has been to focus on a single project. In Democratic Art: The New Deal’s Influence on American Culture, Musher follows the road less taken, traveling widely across the full gamut. Herein lies the main contribution of her judicious volume.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".