MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251555541 · doi:10.1386/jcs.5.1.100_1

Curators and Instagram: Affect, Relationality and Keeping in Touch

2016· article· en· W4251555541 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curatorial Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsImmediacyContext (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)ModalitiesDichotomyAestheticsRelevance (law)SightSociologyPsychologyArtEpistemologyHistoryCommunicationPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curators use Instagram like many individuals to post selfies and images of friends, special events, travel and other notable sights. Yet this platform has taken on special relevance in the art world by how it extends curatorial relationality and modalities of affective engagement. In this article, I survey accounts of curators whose Instagram accounts blur work/life dichotomies, adopt conceptual or feminist projects, and function as avenues for ethico-aesthetic intensifications of awareness. I argue that Instagram’s affect of proximal immediacy keeps users ‘in touch’ through a range of haptic modalities that in effect bring the art world into one’s hand; kinaesthetically mobilize users through ‘following’; and reveal the manners by which curators attune themselves to context.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.223 · 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