Ambiguïtés de la réception critique de l’exposition « Canadian Women Artists », Riverside Museum, New York, 1947
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the spring of 1947, the Riverside Museum in New York presented the travelling exhibition, “Canadian Women Artists,” bringing together paintings by seventy-two Canadian women, including Emily Carr, Kathleen Daly, Prudence Heward, Anne Savage, Marian D. Scott, Jori Smith and Edna Taçon. The Canadian organizers aimed to make women more visible and to include them within the dominant artistic directions in Canada. The mobilization of women into an international exhibition was without historical precedent. In this respect, the event took on a fundamental importance for the inscription of women in the history of Canadian art. Nevertheless, a heterogeneous collection of works was favoured, and this article intends to show that this orientation weakened the content of the exhibition, favouring questions extraneous to the specificity of the works and to the diffusion of women’s art. Only Anne Francis, of the Ottawa Citizen, used the exhibition as an opportunity to denounce the masculine exclusivity of the notion of the creator. Elizabeth Wyn Wood, to whom the introduction of the catalogue had been entrusted, availed herself of the opportunity to valorize the idea of a Canadian artistic temperament which took account of the cultural diversity of the country. The American critic, E.A. Jewell, saw in the exhibition the manifestation of a nationalism that he tried to define by reference to the Group of Seven. For Nettie S. Horch, the director of the Riverside Museum, “Canadian Women Artists” shouldered political aims that overshadowed a singular emphasis on the contribution of women. According to her, the event took up, once more, the efforts of collaboration between nations undertaken by the United States before the war. The feminist purpose, potentially disturbing, was thus reduced by political and ideological considerations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".