MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W269433355 · doi:10.3138/jcs.47.2.60

“More a Diplomatic than an Esthetic Event”: Canada, Brazil, and Cultural Brokering in the São Paulo Biennial and “Isumavut”

2013· article· en· W269433355 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kirsty Robertson, Stephanie G. Anderson, Elizabeth Diggon, A. Ben Moussa, Sarah E.K. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionGovernment (linguistics)Argument (complex analysis)AutonomyDemocracySociologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceHistoryLawArt historyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay looks at models of cultural brokering between Canada and Brazil, from 1950 to the present. Focussed on two exhibitions, the Sào Paulo Biennial and “Isumavut,” the essay reveals the ways that government has historically used culture to broker relationships between Canada and other nations, and more specifically, to manage an often-tense economic relationship with Brazil. Using these exhibitions, the essay documents a postwar attempt to give art and culture a role in international affairs, and to introduce Canada as part of an international community of other like-minded liberal-democratic nations. The argument then considers how debates between the National Gallery and the Department of Foreign Affairs in the 1950s over the autonomy of art within the Biennial had largely disappeared by the early 2000s when “Isumavut” provided a colourful backdrop for a series of corporate and government-organized events. The essay concludes in the present moment, asking whether the model of cultural brokering still applies when art and other government-sponsored cultural exchange programs aimed at Brazil have largely been cancelled.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207