MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910198061 · doi:10.1353/gpq.2019.0006

The North End Revisited: Photographs by John Paskievich by John Paskievich

2019· article· en· W2910198061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Ciurysek

Bibliographic record

VenueGreat plains quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)PrideHistoryPhotographyNegativeArt historyVisual artsSociologyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The North End Revisited: Photographs by John Paskievich by John Paskievich Sarah Ciurysek The North End Revisited: Photographs by John Paskievich .By John Paskievich. Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba Press, 2017. 235 pp. Illustrations. $39.95 CAD, $39.95 USD, paper. The North End Revisited is a book of 200 black and white photographs, two essays, and one interview with the photographer, John Paskievich. It’s an easily handheld paperback with smooth pages, making it pleasant to flip through as well as to study its striking, poignant, and often funny street photographs. The photographs represent people and places within the working-class North End of Winnipeg. Most of the photos are from the 1970s to the 1990s and document what used to be primarily a Ukrainian and Jewish neighborhood. Recent and additional photos in this third edition tell more stories though: there are 200 images as compared to 160 in The North End (2007) and 71 in A Place Not Our Own (1978). The North End Revisited makes me glad for the infrequent chance to say that documentary photography impacts contemporary public discourse. Paskievich’s photos are considered and discussed by many Winnipeggers. One person who moved from Philadelphia to Winnipeg said that Paskievich’s books told him that this city, unfamiliar to him and “off the map” to most people who live elsewhere, has a history and also civic pride (something not always present in underrepresented and thus under-mythologized Canadian cities). Another person remembered a packed event at the public library celebrating Paskievich’s work. For locals and nonlocals alike, this book helps readers know that people care about this place, it is real to those who live here. It matters. The book’s relationship to nostalgia in a time of reconciliation requires further examination. One might think that looking back, with affection, at when the eastern European community thrived in the North End precludes similarly positive feelings about the current reality—where the North End is now more known for its Indigenous demographic. But it doesn’t have to. And I believe it doesn’t in this book, in which change and diversity are represented respectfully. Notably, Paskievich points to the future by ending with an image of two young First Nations women, rather than with the two elderly Slavic women closing the previous books. But I came to my conclusion after careful observation, and one could too easily draw a different conclusion when quickly looking at the book’s ratio of mostly older photographs, sprinkled with new—especially when Paskievich is known for the former. An opportunity to more fully and explicitly explore a worthwhile topic of reconciliation—nostalgia’s coexistence with change—was missed, in the texts or perhaps in the photos’ editing. It is still available to those considering and discussing Paskievich’s photographs. As George Melynk writes in The North End Revisited, the fact that the book has been published three times indicates that there is something enduring about the concept of the North [End Page 90] End. Certainly the neighborhood’s iconic stature is due to events such as the 1919 General Strike born there, as well as to its poverty and its distinct identities, but it is also due to the ongoing impact of John Paskievich’s photographs. Sarah Ciurysek School of Art University of Manitoba Copyright © 2019 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.035

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreat plains quarterlySame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207