CoC Methodology: Generating Communities of Care Within Indigenous Spaces Through Trauma-Informed Visual Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interdisciplinary Two-Spirit, Métis/Saulteaux/Polish artist, Dayna Danger establishes Indigenous protocol through their artistic practice, which translates through their Mask series and their digital film Bebeschendaam , as they demonstrate the ways in which community is generated, upheld and maintained through their art works. In particular, these collaborative projects exemplify methodologies that revolve around building and nurturing community, which generates a Communities of Care methodology, formed by feminist theorist and scholar, bell hooks. Through this concept, Danger advocated for the term, CoC Methodology at their keynote at Concordia University’s Art History Graduate Student Association’s (AHGSA) 13 th annual symposium on the theme of Communities of Care, held in February 2019. CoC Methodology relates to the stability and growth of Two-Spirit, Indigiqueer, trans, female and gender-variant Indigenous folks. By advocating for CoC Methodology, Danger’s artistic practice not only concentrates on the creative output, but also on the facilitation of community building and safe-keeping.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".