MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806433261 · doi:10.1111/var.12155

Electric Beads: On Indigenous Digital Formalism

2018· article· en· W2806433261 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Garneau

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Anthropology Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousNavajoFormalism (music)MetaphysicsSociologyKinshipVisual artsAestheticsHistoryArtEpistemologyAnthropologyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay considers whether Indigenous artists employ digital media differently than do non‐Indigenous artists. The article distinguishes works that are illusions that users wittingly pass through to engage the content, and sticky works in which users are encouraged to get caught up in the pleasures of the form. Through readings of the beading animations of Jon Corbett (Métis) and the sound art of Raven Chacon (Navajo), I propose that when they are expressing themselves as Indigenous, Indigenous artists always make representational work, however abstract or experimental. They refer to kinship and history, relations with the land, and the metaphysical.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisual Anthropology ReviewSame topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207