Bibliographic record
Abstract
With this collection we hope to further discussion about the possible futures of Canadian art history.At a moment in which the discipline of Canadian art history seems to be in flux, and in which the study of visual culture produced in Canada is gaining traction in a number of interdisciplinary venues outside of art history departments, we ask: what is at stake in the creation, replication, and dissemination of a Canadian art history?With this question at hand, a group of scholars from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds gathered together for a workshop.1 The workshop was organized around a series of questions and readings, given to participants in advance. 2 The questions were as follows:1 Is "Canada" (or, for that matter, any other nation) still relevant as a category of inquiry -as a site for knowledge production -now that we face neo-liberalism, corporate globalization, and what has been described as a "post-national" landscape? 2 What happens to the project of Canadian visual history if we begin with the premise that Canada, as essence, place, nation, or ideal, does not exist?Is there a place for writing (visual) histories of nation in an age of "global analyses"?If so, what is it?If not, what should be the project now? 3 The argument that culture is increasingly used as an economic and socio-political "resource" resonates strongly with the popular strategies of "urban gurus" such as Richard Florida, and increasingly with municipal, provincial, and occasionally federal government policy.Such strategies both contrast with but also speak to traditions of Canadian state support for culture that also filter strongly into the shaping of the national(ist) discipline of Canadian art history.At the multiple points where national culture and globalization collide, what are some of the questions that we might ask ourselves as scholars of these complex times?
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.329 | 0.119 |
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".