Burgeoning curators and education: The evolution of curating in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SKETCHin Toronto (1971), soon followed by one in virtually every major city.Many of these spaces focused on the new practices of video, performance and installation art that defined the exhibition space as a "vessel to be filled by the artists who used it."Once established, the network of artistrun galleries were funded by the Canada Council of the Arts and various provincial arts councils.With the various councils' acknowledgement of the principle of paying artists exhibition fees (which had been advocated by Canadian Artists Representation) there were funds to pay artists, and eventually fees for writers and curators.Funding for exhibitions enhanced and strengthened the independent curators' role, which combined with the councils' more demanding jury processes required applicants to develop complex exhibition proposals such as curatorial thesis statements, budgets, schedules and catalogue essays.Simultaneously, curatorial and critical writing was fostered in catalogue essays, magazines,
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 | 0.015 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.074 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".