MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604254487 · doi:10.1386/jcs.5.3.368_1

The Art of Soft Power at Expo 67: Creative America and Cultural Diplomacy in the US Pavilion

2016· article· en· W2604254487 on OpenAlex
Asa McKercher

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curatorial Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyPavilionExhibitionHollywoodPower (physics)Government (linguistics)Culture of the United StatesSoft powerPolitical scienceArtAestheticsVisual artsMedia studiesSociologyHistoryPoliticsArt historyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract At Expo 67 in Montreal, the US government sought to counter negative world opinion by sponsoring a public diplomacy display that emphasized American culture. While US technological achievements were championed in a space exhibit, the bulk of the Creative America exhibition celebrated American popular culture, a break from the typical focus of such displays upon economic and military power. Not only did Creative America celebrate Hollywood, folk art and pop music, it also offered a subtle critique of American mass culture, a particular point of emphasis in the pop art featured in American Painting Now. This embrace of pop art marked a shift in US government cultural diplomacy away from abstract expressionism, an art form supported for its embrace of freedom. In highlighting pop art, American cultural diplomacy emphasized freedom of expression in a different way: the freedom to criticize one’s own society.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.305 · 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