Walking together: Shared authority and co-mentorship between two artists on the move
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We invite you to join us as we explore our co-mentorship through walking, artmaking and writing, all core aspects of our practices as artists. While meandering through the rich sensorial environment of Montreal’s waterside Parc-nature de l’Île-de-la-Visitation, our reactions to the surroundings played an influential role in shaping the character of this article. Our ideas emerged through the quiet heat of the early spring sunshine and amidst intermittent remarks about the birds flying by, the directionality of the flowing river, the strength of the wind, the sounds of lapping water, the families enjoying picnics, the demographics of the neighbourhood surrounding the park, and even the roar of a hydro dam we encountered for the first time. Drawing on a posthumanist framework, notions of shared authority borrowed from oral history, methods of call-and-response, and co-mentorship, the authors – a doctoral supervisor and a doctoral candidate in Art Education at Concordia University in Montreal – reflect on their hopes for and experiences of their work together as complementary, convergent, concurrent and symbiotic.
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 | 0.025 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".