MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205538058 · doi:10.1080/13528165.2021.1977493

Fracturing Patriarchal Objectivity through Electro-Pop: Purity Ring and the vicissitudes of sight

2021· article· en· W4205538058 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip Watkinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePerformance Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjectivity (philosophy)AestheticsConversationPerceptionReactionaryPoliticsMusicalPoetrySociologyArtVisual artsLiteraturePhilosophyEpistemologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the deviated modes of seeing in the work of Canadian electro-pop band Purity Ring. Bringing their recent music into conversation with the theory of Tim Ingold and Eugenie Brinkema, I suggest that Megan James and Corin Roddick perform seeing as a granular, augmented act that continually shapes the boundaries between our bodies and the world around us. Particular attention is paid to James and Roddick’s creative engagement with optical touch and the formal capability of music to engage affectively with the act of seeing.By integrating musical examples, Tallulah Fontaine’s artwork for the band and the poetry of Kiran Millwood Hargrave, this article offers an expanded reading experience that spans the textual, the aural and the visual. I argue that the political crux of Purity Ring’s performance of perception lies in them moving beyond a reactionary response to patriarchal objectivity and towards a creative refiguration of perception as a form of subjectivation. The eyes that Purity Ring instantiate do not passively observe the world; they change it, both consoled and engulfed by the vicissitudes of perception.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.071
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerformance ResearchSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207