MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803240257

Ephemera: The Searching of an Adopted Daughter

2016· dissertation· en· W2803240257 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Greenway

Bibliographic record

VenueYorkSpace (York University) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessEphemeraContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)AestheticsMemoirConformityOrder (exchange)ArtSociologyVisual artsPsychologyLiteratureSocial psychologyHistoryPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation utilizes self-study, memoir, and art-making in the context of personal trauma in order to witness and examine the wound that comes from being an adoptee. Using my own experience as a woman, and as part of an adoption triangle, I journey beyond the traditional case study and statistical or psychological analysis where adoption is treated as a singular event, finite and quantifiable. I examine research and theory across disciplines, as well as literary and artistic forms, to situate my own experience of adoption, with the view to unearth dynamics of power, secrecy, repression, conformity and suffering that extend beyond the official adoption process. In particular, I focus on my experience of being an adult adoptee in Ontario who was part of the closed adoption system in existence from post World War Two until the recent opening of records. I use art-making in paper and glass, combining these with the objects and small bits of ephemera I possess to give aesthetic expression to the complexity of adoptive experience. I argue that the absence of adoptive representation can be addressed through social and cultural representation, and advocate for the artistic revisioning of adoption as a particularly powerful medium to give voice to unheard/untold stories through adoption art.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYorkSpace (York University)Same topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207