MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800862993 · doi:10.3138/ctr.174.002

Where Water Meets Land: Water’s Time and Place’s Thought in Rebecca Belmore’s <i>Fountain</i>

2018· article· en· W2800862993 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lilian Mengesha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFountainColonialismIndigenousModernityRepresentation (politics)HistorySovereigntyMythologyAestheticsSociologyArtArt historyLiteratureLawPoliticsArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commemorations, by their definition, assume a truth about beginnings and endings. Through an assumption of singular national remembering, Canada’s celebration of its 150-year anniversary marks a symbolic violence against First Nation’s sovereignty and the effects of settler colonialism. In Jean O’Brien’s theorization of process called, “firsting and lasting” of Indigenous people and spaces, she details how settler national memory relies upon the myth of “non-Indian modernity and Indian extinction.” Following O’Brien, this essay examines a contemporary “first”: Anishnaabe artist Rebecca Belmore’s place as “the first aboriginal woman of North America to represent a country” at the Venice Biennale in 2005. Through a reading of Fountain, a performance that interrogates the weight of Canada’s colonial history, this essay shows how her performance destabilizes the singular event of colonial discovery by using materials, like water, blood, and fire, to show its messy, reiterative structure. In doing so, I argue for a reconsideration of the work of art and representation, such as the international Venice Biennale, as a site of staging mythical modernities.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207