MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W325670554

Mapping the (Un)familiar

2000· article· en· W325670554 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pam Patterson, Margaret Rodgers, Virginia MacDonnell Eichhorn

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Technology, and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnconscious mindAdventurePresentation (obstetrics)Section (typography)The artsVisual artsSociologyMedia studiesArtArt historyComputer sciencePsychoanalysisPsychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Margaret Rodgers and Pam PattersonBowmanville: Visual Arts Centre of Clarington, 1994; 40 pp.Reviewed by Virginia MacDonnell EichhornDirector, V. MacDonnell GalleryToronto, OntarioMAPPING T.H.E. (UN)FAMILIAR is a singular work. It is the record of a journey to artists' studios shared by artists Margaret Rodgers and Pam Patterson. Their reactions are interspersed with images on mylar. narrators' writings are placed side by side on opposite pages, with the images between. Thus while the voices are given equal presentation, one text is obfuscated by the image. Rather than being distracting however, this technique provides a success channel for the other text to stay present in the unconscious mind of the reader. When the mylar page is flipped, the process is reversed. Thus one voice never has superiority over the other. Likewise, the images and the text become an intermingled work, without one dominating the other. They both contribute to the final effect and reinforce the shared but distinct experiences of the authors. Further, the visuals create a pause which allows for the reader's perceptions to be swirled around and savoured before proceeding to the next section.Although the authors have successfully synthesized their experiences, it is almost impossible to speak about the work without separating them. Margaret Rodgers begins her section with a title: The Concept. In it she maps out for the reader the adventure that she and Pam are about to begin. Rodgers becomes, in effect, the director or guide, who acknowledges that, both...bring our own intellectual baggage, and our own ideas about what we might find to the process. She pragmatically describes the events that occur, and only hints at a few things that might be developed later on. Her tone might be described as scientifically empirical - and the nature of the journey is rather an experiment - what will happen when? if? with whom? She reports her observations but doesn't seem to try to guide or interpret for the reader. This is a strength and reinforces the nature of the work: she is a cartographer of experience, without telling the reader what s/he must feel. It is left to us.In particular, when she describes the visits to the artists' studios, Rodgers contextualizes the artists via their locale and their work within art historical terms. There is no criticism or even a feeling of like or dislike. She is giving us information. In the same way she gives us guides or indicators of the artists' personalities without imposing any of her own feelings on them.Pam Patterson's writings, which comprise most of the book, are of a very different tone. She begins her section of the book with Afterward - a counterpoint, no doubt to Rodger's concept, but also a continuation, or the natural step after the concept. Where Rodger's voice is objective, however, Patterson's is unmistakably subjective. She is an artist for whom art and experience are indivisible. Patterson doesn't compartmentalize experiences but often has them overlapping (as seen especially in her visit at Scott and Clint Griffin's studio. …

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1350.031

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicArt, Technology, and CultureFrench-language works237,207