Curator's Statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is critical curating ?| Qu'est-ce que le commissariat engagé ?The idea of "care" operates on a number of levels for me.The idea of caring for one's (non-Western) culture -of working to redefine curatorial and institutional practices -is an activist practice, not a placard-carrying activism, but a practice of calling certain ideas, belief systems, and assumptions into question.It is challenging and provocative work, because by raising these questions you are inevitably asking your colleagues and the institution to reconsider foundational assumptions and entrenched ways of doing.Curating in this way is also a process of advocating for a kind of art history that does not objectify our cultures in colonial and Orientalist ways, but which dignifies cultural histories, beliefs, meanings, and practices by advocating for systems of knowledge and forms of experience that are sensitive to communities and community understandings.One of the big questions I grapple with has to do with how to account for the coexistence of modern and non-modern epistemologies in the experience and understanding of art.We assume that ways of looking at and experiencing art is universal, but this is an assumption.There are very few curators of colour in institutions in Canada and around the world.The issues of race, representation, and coloniality are difficult to raise and discuss at any depth, let alone resolve.The problem of secondary Orientalism is barely discussed or acknowledged in the field of art history.We have to be aware of these issues in art museum settings, especially when we are looking to engage diverse cultural communities in the Canadian context, where we argue -rightly, in my view -for the social value of our cultural institutions.¶
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 | 0.032 | 0.367 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.182 | 0.242 |
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".