MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W316392654

[Ghosts in the Machine: Women & Cultural Policy in Canada & Australia]

2001· article· en· W316392654 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Eva Mackey, Alison Beale, van den Bosch

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsContext (archaeology)SociologyViewpointsHegemonyCultural policyPortraitRepresentation (politics)RestructuringGender studiesMedia studiesPolitical scienceHistoryLawArt historyVisual artsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Edited by a Canadian communications scholar and an Australian art historian with expertise in arts administration, Ghosts in the Machine: Women and Cultural Policy in Canada and Australia pulls together a collection of chapters that as a whole reflect a wide range of feminist preoccupations regarding culture and policy. The collection has a twofold goal: first, that of documenting diverse women's knowledge of the politics of culture, and second, understanding issues of gender and cultural policy within the context of the global economic restructuring that both nations are experiencing at the end of the twentieth century. Designed in part to counter hegemonic debates in cultural studies that are often dominated by British and American viewpoints, the choice to juxtapose Australia and Canada, countries with similar histories and key cultural issues, is an excellent and potentially very productive one. As a result of these multiple goals, the collection covers a broad spectrum of issues.One issue is the symbolic representation of women's bodies as the nation, taken up beautifully in Elizabeth Gertsakis' visual piece juxtaposing turn-of-the-century portraits of women with tourist images of waterfalls in Australia. Another fascinating chapter, by Brenda Longfellow, explores the changing and contradictory ways that traditional modernist images of women's bodies as symbols of the nation appear in Canada and Quebec, and analyzes how they are disrupted in the work of women filmmakers Joyce Wieland and Lea Pool. The second issue addressed in the book also concerns representation, but more practically in terms of the low numbers of women involved in the policymaking process and as artists and curators in institutions. Often these issues are raised in first person narratives of struggles to change the policymaking process. Patricia Gillard, for example, examines the experience of being the only woman member of the Broadcast Services Expert Group in Australia, and gives a detailed account of how gender concerns became marginalized and erased despite good intentions. Andra McCartney discusses her research on gender and the institutional relations of electroacoustic composers in Australia. The necessity of incorporating woman artists into programs for new media on a more equitable basis is discussed by Annette Van Den Bosch.One of the strongest aspects of the book is the analysis of discourses and policies in the context of globalization and economic rationalism. Barbara Godard's rigorous genealogy of arts funding discourse in Canada explores in detail the development of the idea that culture is a special interest and how exchange has become culture's criteria of value. Other chapters, such as one by Patricia Gillard and another by Annette Van Den Bosch, explore how the current national focus on high tech culture and the market is deeply gendered. Alison Beale's excellent chapter addresses in part the development of market-driven cultural policies and of a consumer- choice model of citizenship, and investigates how, as the welfare state is dismantled, women's concerns are left to the market.Several of the chapters offer sophisticated and well-theorized accounts of the double-edged sword of cultural policies within the context of national and global pressures. Monika Kin Gagnon's essay, for example, discusses three conferences organized by artists of colour in Canada, and demonstrates the resistance of mainstream Canadian society and organizations to dealing with diversity in a more than tokenistic way. …

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207