MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328100453 · doi:10.4324/9781003326809-9

Exhibition as Pilgrimage

2023· book-chapter· en· W4328100453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron Rosen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilgrimageExhibitionArtHistoryArt historyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, Aaron Rosen co-founded Stations of the Cross , an international, multisite public arts project whose mission is “to use the story of the Passion to prompt reflection and action in response to challenges of social justice.” The exhibition draws upon the devotional practice many Christians follow during Lent, in which they retrace the final fourteen episodes (stations) of Jesus’ journey through Jerusalem, from condemnation to crucifixion and entombment. In each city that hosts the project, curators design a bespoke, fourteen-stop route, marked by both existing and specially commissioned works of art. To date, the exhibition has been staged in London, Washington, DC, New York City, Amsterdam, Deventer, and Toronto. In this essay, Rosen considers how an exhibition explicitly inspired by Christian history and practice can enrich Christian observance while simultaneously providing avenues for deep but non-confessional engagement by non-Christians. The chapter focuses on two modes of religious and aesthetic engagement through whichStations fosters encounters within and between faiths: embodied looking and attentive walking. Conceiving of an exhibition qua pilgrimage, and vice versa , the chapter suggests, reveals important strategies for interfaith dialogue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207