MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Indian Group of Seven

2018· book-chapter· en· W4229953078 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matt Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPoliticsColonialismCarvingHistorySubject (documents)ArtAnthropologySociologyPolitical scienceLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Indian Group of Seven is an ironic title given by a reporter from the Winnipeg Free Press to a collective of Indigenous artists from Canada, including Jackson Beardy (1944–1984), Eddy Cobiness (1933–1996), Alex Janvier (b. 1935), Norval Morrisseau (1932–2007), Daphne Odjig (b. 1919), Carl Ray (1942–1978), and Joseph Sanchez (b. 1948). Their name is a direct reference to the Group of Seven, a collective of Canadian artists who used the Canadian landscape as their primary subject matter in the 1920s and 1930s. The Indian Group of Seven emerged soon after Montreal’s 1967 International and Universal Exposition, and the 1969 release of the Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian policy—events that were heavily criticized for supporting colonial legacies and supressing Indigenous rights. The Group’s artwork reacted against such politics. They sought to break cultural and political stereotypes by demanding recognition as professional artists, by challenging established meanings of contemporary Indigenous art, and reconsidering social relationships to Indigenous peoples. The Indian Group of Seven helped to change the preconceived notion that Indigenous artists were preoccupied with traditional craftwork such as weaving, pottery, and carving.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3140.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207