MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236169112 · doi:10.3138/ctr.166.008

Serious Politics

2016· article· en· W4236169112 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kim Waldron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyPoliticsPerformance artArtVisual artsMedia studiesArt historyAestheticsPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artist Kim Waldron discusses her experience running as an independent candidate in the 2015 federal election, facing off against Justin Trudeau in the Montreal riding of Papineau. Waldron describes aspects of her campaign that formed part of what she saw as a durational performance—from exploring the language that is used to define women candidates to experimenting with female self-presentation within advertising (Waldron presented her pregnant body in her campaign posters). While artists in the past have run as candidates mostly as a form of satire, Waldron proposed that a professional artist could be taken seriously as an effective representative. Waldron explains how she went about gaining legitimacy as a candidate and getting her voice heard, as well as her participation in the Papineau All-Candidates Debate 2015, hosted by the artist-run centre Optica as part of the VIVA! Art Action performance festival.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.007

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicPublic Spaces through ArtFrench-language works237,207