Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accentuating structures and spaces that have typically been considered ‘support’ (such as the elevator, the hallway, and the exit), as well as spaces of the everyday, such as the queer dance club, I examine the art, choreography, dance, and curatorial practices of Canadian and American artists and choreographers Brendan Fernandes, taisha paggett, and Trajal Harrel, whose bodies force a reckoning with taken-as-given understandings of art’s built environments—the bodies they have historically served, as well as the ones they have historically made invisible. I focus on the bodies and structures that commingle with other bodies and structures within institutional space—institutional designating the physical space of galleries and studios, but also the institution, more conceptually, of history-writing, and the material effects of its strategic erasures. I argue that movement-based and dance practices offer forms of strategic deployment against said erasures in the body’s pervasive and unignorable presence within scripted institutional spaces. The dancer as an actant in the gallery, rather than as a performer on the stage, occupies a space with historically fixed connotations, in particular in large-format institutions, which have, in the last decade, turned their attention to movement-based practices. In this chapter I consider dance’s potential, as well as shortcomings, within the context of the gallery, to foreground bodies and their movements that are typically theorised as in support of a more central object, experience, or performance. I also consider how the body in the museum space signals to an outside, for instance, spaces of queer social dance, and works as a bridge between mainstream and alternative space in bringing the everyday spaces of queerness into the institution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".