MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616063554 · doi:10.17742/image.gdr.8-1.6

Whose East German Art is This? The Politics of Reception after 1989

2017· article· fr· W2616063554 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
April A. Eisman

Bibliographic record

VenueImaginations Journal of Cross-Cultural Image Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean history and politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanPoliticsPolitical scienceHistoryArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract | Beginning with an overview of painting in East Germany, this article examines the German-German Bilderstreit (image battle) of the long 1990s and two major art exhibitions in the new millenium, Kunst in der DDR (Art in the GDR, 2003) and Abschied von Ikarus(Farewell to Icarus, 2012-13). It ultimately argues that the history of East German art has been rewritten since unification in ways that reflect Western expectations and desires more than socialist realities, and shows how art historians, scholars of the German Democratic Republic (GDR, or East Germany), and those seeking alternatives to the neoliberal present can benefit from a less biased view. Résumé | Commençant par un résumé de la peinture en Allemagne de l’Est, cet essai examine la bataille de l’image allemande-allemande dans des longues années 1990 et deux grandes expositions d’art dans le nouveau millénaire, Kunst in der DDR (L’Art en la RDA, 2003) et Abschied von Ikarus (Adieu à Icarus. 2012-13). Il fait valoir en fin de compte que l’histoire de l’art est-allemand a été réécrit depuis l’unification d’une manière qui reflète les attentes et désirs occidentales plus des réalités socialistes, et montre comment les historiens de l’art, les chercheurs de la RDA, et ceux qui cherchent des alternatives au présent néolibéraux peuvent bénéficier d’une perspective moins préjugé.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImaginations Journal of Cross-Cultural Image StudiesSame topicEuropean history and politicsFrench-language works237,207