Bibliographic record
Abstract
Who Decides the Land is Sacred? 2018.gif animationArnold McBayThis work is born out of my recent studies in contemporary and historical visual poetry. While experimenting with my own ideas in visual poetry I gravitated towards creating animated visual poems.Who Decides the Land is Sacred is a consideration of the recent conflicts between indigenous peoples, oil companies and animal rights groups over land and animal rights have been much on my mind, especially the current tensions in the Shorthills Provincial Park just outside of St. Catharines, Ontario.The repeated moving line “Who Decides the Land is Sacred?” in the animation is a quote from the headline of a Vancouver Sun article (written by Douglas Todd) on the Supreme Court of Canada case “Ktunaxa Nation versus British Columbia” in which the SCC ruled against the indigenous group. This animation cycles in an infinite loop suggesting an interminable struggle as well as the elusive nature of resolving such conflicts. The ghost of the ecosystem looming in the form of a deer slowly disappears only to be reborn again. The three fragments of the animation shown in these three stills function as archaeological artefacts, fragments perhaps of a failed past and something lost. The media transformation from moving text to solitary frames stills the potential optimism one might read in the animated work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.007 |
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".