MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874684 · doi:10.3138/ctr.139.003

The Intercultural Complexities of <i>Shoot The Indian:</i> An Interview with Archer Pechawis

2009· article· en· W4380874684 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michelle La Flamme

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootVisual artsSymbol (formal)IndigenousArtFREAKMedia studiesHistorySociologyComputer scienceBotanyWorld Wide WebEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shoot the Indian is a performance geared specifically to a mixed (read “non-Native”) audience. Presented during the Magnetic North Festival HIVE event, Shoot the Indian is an audience participation piece, where attendees have the opportunity to shoot a real Indian (Pechawis) with a paintball gun for five dollars. Riffing on the circus freak, vaudeville and old “Wild West” shows, this piece is a commentary on violence against Native people – a clown show, in other words. Pechawis stands in front of a 30-foot wide video projection wearing a beautiful Tsimshian mask (carved by Simon Reece) and a white painter suit. The mask serves a dual purpose: a challenge to the audience (will they shoot such a powerful cultural symbol?) and protection for Pechawis, as he has reinforced the mask with fiberglass. The video footage comes from old westerns edited down to the salient bits, namely Indians attacking whites. Pechawis includes a few sections of cowboys and cavalry playing in reverse. Shoot the Indian is available as a touring performance. Go to the web site to view the video footage of Shoot The Indian, HIVE, Vancouver BC, 2008 (adapted from “Shoot the Indian”).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0320.031
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207