MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205567495 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14632

Normalism and Legal Representation in Canadian Art

2021· dissertation· en· W4205567495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evan Curley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropositionReflexivitySupreme courtLawRepresentation (politics)SociologyAestheticsArtPolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophyPoliticsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, I consider a 2014 Supreme Court hearing involving the National Gallery of Canada and CARFAC-RAAV, our nation's preeminent artists' advocacy group.It is my proposition that CARFAC-RAAV's success in the hearing -which legally required the National Gallery to pay mandatory minimum fees to artists exhibiting in their gallery -is part of a process of reification of an artistic productivism.A suite of theoretical considerations build toward this conclusion focusing on the study of the antithetical tendencies of the legal and artistic orders.I argue that the former is based on a predilection for continuity and permanence, the latter on reflexivity and a certain anomalistic acceptance of things anew.When these two orders meet in the event of the hearing, a juridical rigidity of value and vision finds mooring in the artistic field.This is pertinent today because alternative visions of arts' operation become stymied behind normalized labour-centered forms of practice.In this case then, law becomes one important sinew of normalism in the Canadian artistic field.for their invaluable support throughout my degree.Dr. Leistle has been an incredible supervisor -to me, he epitomizes the qualities of an academic mentor that all students seek: intellectual curiosity and mastery, humility and openness, supportiveness, and a collaborative and respectful nature.Both Dr. Leistle and Dr. Landry have paid close attention to my work, giving me thorough constructive feedback, which is something that not all students are privileged to receive.So, I thank them both for that.The administrators in the Sociology department have also been outstanding.After spending many years in the university as a student, I understand that navigating the institution is much easier and much more pleasant when you have people who are sincere in their wish for you to be successful, and vigilant in their willingness to help you.Lastly, I would like to thank my partner Robyn and my family Terry, Carol, and Emma for their continual support in all that I do.In so many ways, their care has made this degree possible.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0320.059
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaw in Society and Culture→French-language works237,207→