The search for effective models of supporting national culture: the canadian experience of the «pandemic period»
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of the Canadian experience of supporting national culture in response to the challenges of the «pandemic period», the experience of optimizing the resources of available cultural capital to create a system of self-organization of Canadian society in modern realities. For the whole Ukrainian society, as well as for the theory and practice of domestic culturological knowledge, to optimize cultural policy it is necessary to investigate and understand universal and specific steps in the management of cultural and artistic spheres of other countries, the resources of cultural capital, Article is focused on the process of conceptualization of the experimental knowledge gained in recent management of Canada's national culture which took place in a short period of the first pandemic challenges in parallel with the rapid instrumentalization of the results (approaches, analytical and interpretive systems, management models). It is noted that the Canadian experience of providing flexibility in the movement of managerial, financial and organizational resources, which would be optimally correlated with the dynamics of modern socio-cultural life, is extremely valuable. The existing model of cultural governance in Canada, the organization of interaction between the state and cultural institutions - «the arms-length principle» in modern realities allows to flexibly and dynamically respond to the variability of socio-cultural situation. The policy of multiethnic multicultural Canada has for many decades been pursued in the field of culture in the context of affirmation of national cultural identity and cultural sovereignty. The article analyzes ways and means to strengthen the support of Canadian content at the international level and stimulate the development of the domestic market of creative industries, artists support, creative professions, cultural management sector at the national, regional and local levels in recent years. The research is focused on the Canadian experience of integrating into the organizational culture of management of various creative actors - the state, civil society institutions, artistic communities, organizations and individuals whose activities are directly or indirectly related to cultural and artistic practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".