Other(ing) practices: critiquing the Canada Council for the Arts' Equity Office
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Canada Council for the Arts' Equity Office' s mandate, support is maintained for artists of African, Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American, and mixed-race heritage. To fulfill this duty, grant programs have been developed specifically for these artists who are identified as 'culturally diverse'. As an art world unto itself, the Canada Council is responsible not only for creating its own conventions but also for determining what kind of artists may operate within it. With differentiated grant programs for culturally diverse artists, it appears that this group occupies a marginal space within the Canada Council's art world. Drawing from the experiences of two culturally diverse artists, this paper examines issues of belonging, representation, and identity. It was found that while the artists are aware and uncomfortable with the stigma that arises from the 'culturally diverse' label, the reception of public funding takes precedence over feelings of Otherness. Key words: Canada Council for the Arts; culturally diverse; artist; equity; Othering
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 | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.085 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".