MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244405738 · doi:10.26522/br.v11i2.312

Rural Roots

2011· article· en· W4244405738 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kristine Thoreson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Brock Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedEthnographyScholarshipIdentity (music)NarrativeConstruct (python library)Space (punctuation)Intersection (aeronautics)SociologyVisual artsAestheticsGeographyArtAnthropologyCartographyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a Western Canadian artist, my work investigates methods through which we construct and deconstruct narratives of personal and cultural identity and the role of self-performance within these practices. My work is situated within the intersection of Performance Studies, visual art, and local scholarship. Through art I seek to enrich the growing body of knowledge regarding photography as a performance of identity, and to document personal experiences in the region of Southern Alberta. This photographic project is indicative of my tendency to work out in the landscape while not attempting to “capture” traditional landscape “scenery”. My goal is instead to get to know a place, and to discover or resist some kind of personal, cultural or topographical attachment; it is to discover what it is that draws me in (or repels me). Thus with this project, I do not seek to do an ethnographic study of what the rural places around Calgary Alberta may mean to certain people. Rather, I am interested in the intersection of space with place and how we transform wide open space into meaningful place.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.006

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Brock ReviewSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207