MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255526821 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14666421

Re-contextualizing a visual history of Canada : the division of the National Film Board of Canada's Still Photography Division collection

2021· preprint· en· W4255526821 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionPhotographyNewspaperMandateHistory of photographyEphemeraArchivistVisual artsCollection developmentSpecial collectionsLibrary scienceHistoryMedia studiesSociologyPolitical scienceArtLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the collection of photographs produced by the National Film Board of Canada's Still Photography Division between the years 1941 and 1984. As originally conceived, the Still Photography Division produced images of Canada and Canadians for promotional use by government departments and as stock images for magazines and newspapers. The collection was divided, initially in 1971, later in 1975, and finally in 1984. Photographs made before 1962 are housed at Library and Archives of Canada, those made after that date are in the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography, founded in 1985. The thesis is organized into two major parts. The first provides a brief history of the National Film Board of Canada's Still Photography Division, describing its mandate, purposes, and evolution. The second compares the use and presentation of the Still Photography Division material at Library and Archives of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography in six areas: 1. Physical organizaation of the collections; 2. Physical housing of both prints and negatives in the collections; 3. Intellectual organization and access to the collections; 4. Public access to the collections; 5. Published information on the collections; 6. Public exhibitions and display. This comparison allows one to see how the distinctive purposes, procedures, and practices of an archive and an art museum have been applied to the physical arrangement and intellectual organization of this collection of 'documentary' photographs, thereby revealing and highlighting the fundamental differences between these two types of cultural institutions in Canada.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207