MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917411172 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v8i1.472

Reflections on Access: Disability in Curatorial Practice

2019· article· en· W2917411172 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionVisual artsOrder (exchange)SociologyAestheticsArtWork (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access is a vital tool to deploy within a critical disability curatorial practice and can embody both conceptual and physical possibilities, whereby the very idea of access can be discovered in an artist’s work, and, at the same time, be productively curated into both gallery spaces and the exhibition of the artwork. This essay reflects on the author’s critical disability curatorial practice with the exhibitions Marking Blind (2015) and Sweet Gongs Vibrating (2016). Through the curation of works by Raphaëlle de Groot and Carmen Papalia, and through the artist curator relationship between the artists and the curator, the author of this paper, both exhibitions incorporated access in order to benefit the artists, the artworks, as well as diverse audiences. This paper argues that through the guidance of the curator, access can be incorporated into the exhibition in highly imaginative and artistic ways.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.245 · 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