MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486242850 · doi:10.7202/1072661ar

Identification de l’avant-garde et identité de l’artiste : les femmes et le groupe automatiste au Québec (1941-1948)

2020· article· en· W2486242850 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rose Marie Arbour

Bibliographic record

VenueRACAR Revue d art canadienne · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvant gardeContext (archaeology)ManifestoModernityArtHumanitiesConsecrationArt historyLiteratureHistoryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines the status of women artists directly or indirectly related to the Automatist Movement in Quebec during the 1940s. Some of these women were signatories of the group's notorious Refus global (1948) manifesto, which marked a turning point in radical modern thought in Quebec. The author first recontextualizes the contribution of women artists to the art vivant milieu during the inter-war years; she then discusses an important aspect of radical modernity (avant-garde) as represented by the Automatists (1942-54): the plurality of disciplines and the trans-disciplinary practice, characteristic of nearly all the women artists involved in this movement. In conclusion, she offers an analysis of the significance of the signing of the Refus global for women artists: had they not done so, most of them would not be recognized as part of the history of this artistic and literary avant-garde movement, let alone the history of art in general. This study reveals the extent to which avant-garde activity relies on theoretical thought and writing to become a part of history. That few women have made their mark in artistic avant-garde movements has been attributed, in part, to the fact that they have written little, if at all. The same would no doubt be true of the women artists discussed here had they not signed their name to the Refus global. A number of them would undoubtedly have been acclaimed even without this signatory consecration, but recognition would have come at a later date and in another context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRACAR Revue d art canadienneSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207