Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chairman's introductionIn this vear ' s anntlal report, I wish to confine my openin g remarks to conlnaending Sir Cameron Mackintosh's articl e (sce pctflc 12) cm the contlecrion between the subsidised an d unsubsidised arts .It is one of the most powerful pieces o f advocacy -u11,111Swerable even -for sustaining, nor cutting , the very nxxiest contribution the taxpayer makes to ou r share of Britain's third or fourth most important industry.Arts, leisure and tourism are, if you list them as a sector, right up there with oil, pharmaceuticals and financial services .Sir Cameron is concerned with the theatre bu t what he says applies, to a greater or lesser degree, to othe r art forms including popular music .The dilemma facing the Council is clearly spelt out by ou r Secretary-General in the article which follows .My mai n contribution is an excerpt from a debate I initiated in th e House of Lords, which laid great stress can the positiv e benefits of the National Lorterv (we are not whingers) bu t which addresses -again, I hope, in a positive seal' -sonle of the difficulties and how we are seeking to tackle them .Tile best news of all 1s the cimt11lu1ng vigour of the arts at local, regional, national and international level .Th e funding organisations, the Rc-ional Arts Boards an d oursel .es exist to serve the arts and we are only useftil i n so far as we do so .So I should like to pay tribute to the Regional Arts Boards, with whom sve are now workin g more closely than ever before (all 10 chairmen joined th e Council this \-ear), and their staff for their work .Loca l government, also hard pressed for funds, continues to recognise the regenerative work of cultural initiatives wher e cities, towns and villages are concerned and has responde d vigorously to the National Lotter\ : The authorities are every bit as involved as we are .The Council is gratefu l to them and grateful, too, for the services of our ow n dedicated officials .The work that they do, in relation to the material rewards they receive for it, constitute s a system of arts patronage in itself.Lord Gowri e C'bairrma n Airs CouPicil n1'D'yland September 1996 0 11jeArts (:rnrraiil ref triglrrrir!1995.`90 'JJlst fh7• once, let us praise sf);wtbim which has bren dime' well 1 7 N 7brAru(]iuncilo)Entllanrl199.596CollTall1C, 11'Ctl' t,llftCl'tll} .IllC,itl'e ' 4 111-,55 roots AN .hoots th,u people aced and Supporr : nccatre in education , Schools' programmes, ftoflrishin~g rcIT1011,11 thcarrc ."\%-here Shakespearean productions are properly cast, grants ti 1-r dr:ulla students . . .In tact .the erosion is evident whereve r tllc Ilea `"Cneration (f produitiVC talent and a111diences i s dc•~elopinti -New work commissioned in 199519 6 Fur the first rims the Art, C :r nln,l! has c,,Ilccttd informarion abimt the amount of n xk work commissioned bs organisartons funded rcgularly bs the arts Council and the Rgnonal Arts Roards .' Iltis int -ormation i s set Out in the table below.The new eork may not hale been pc orme d or presented in 1995 96 .Illc table drxs not include intormarion about ncss work supprlrted b y project or development funding .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.466 | 0.394 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".