MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232919929 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14663487

Greg Curnoe’s home movies: recording an oral history commentary

2021· preprint· en· W4232919929 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jesse Brossoit

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicOral History, Memory, Narrative Analysis
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilToronto Metropolitan UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOral historyVisual artsSubject matterSubject (documents)Order (exchange)Selection (genetic algorithm)ArtArt historyHistoryPsychologyComputer scienceLibrary scienceArtificial intelligenceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper documents an applied oral history project that focuses on the moving image works of Canadian artist Greg Curnoe (1936-1992). In order to document these works in a manner appropriate to their subject matter, a series of oral history interviews were arranged with a group of the artist's friends and family. Participants were asked a series of questions and were shown footage from a selection of Curnoe's films and videos, including two 16mm films—No Movie (1965) and Souwesto (1969)—and a three-part video series entitled The Laithwaite Farm (1974). While watching these works, the participants were asked to comment aloud and their resulting commentaries were recorded and transcribed for the E.P. Taylor Research Library and Archives at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Also included in this paper is a brief analysis of these oral history documents, as well as a history of Curnoe's work with moving image technologies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0160.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOral History, Memory, Narrative AnalysisFrench-language works237,207