On the Drama of Canadian Public Arts Funding: An Analysis of Justin Trudeau’s Mandate Letter to Mélanie Joly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is both an analysis of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s mandate letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage Mélanie Joly and a call to action to Canadian artists. I argue that, in order to ensure a sustainable and productive realization of Justin Trudeau’s plans for Canadian arts and culture, we, as artists, must construct a clear vision for the importance of arts and culture to the health of our democracy and clearly communicate that vision to government. Unless Trudeau’s promises are embedded in that kind of vision—a universally acknowledged central purpose—his promises create no new security for Canadian artists. Concretely put, we must overcome our inertia, extract ourselves from our current economic context, and reacquaint ourselves with our actual purpose. Why do we make art? Why is it important that we do? We must become agents of our own identities, lives, and livelihoods by changing the conversation about arts and culture in Canada from the bottom up. It is essential and timely that we reconfigure the terms with, and the context within which, arts and culture are currently defined.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".