Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of photographic archives have tended to follow two distinct models: analyses of institutional archives as systems of knowledge and power, or close readings of objects informed by theories of material culture. Art historical research, in contrast, also seeks to determine intentional meanings behind images or artefacts. The archive of a photographer can thus be approached along three different angles: as a system for filing images and their meanings; as a collection of material objects; finally, as traces of use that correspond to specific intentional acts by the artist directed towards the production of artworks. In an art historical context, the archive can be read as a means towards an end. This paper presents a case study of Canadian photographer John Max (1936-2011) and his use of the archive to produce the landmark sequence Open Passport (exhibited 1972; published 1973). Using both documentary and material evidence shows how John Max’s photographic artworks are specified through a process of materially realized editorial decisions more than by the moment of exposure. These decisions in turn are mediated by material features of the archive, such as traces of previous choices on contact sheets. Finally, this mediating role of the archive is also socialized, integrating both collaborators and existing ideas, pointing at the necessity of a networked narrative in monographic studies of photographers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".