MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380926199 · doi:10.3138/ctr.106.001

Pedagogies, Politics and Practices in Working with Youth

2001· article· en· W4380926199 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Edward Little, Rachael Van Fossen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsPoliticsValue (mathematics)Visual arts educationWork (physics)SociologyVisual artsArts in educationPerforming artsPerforming arts educationPolitical scienceArtEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1998, following consultation with federal, provincial, territorial and municipal cultural departments, various arts councils and almost 200 Canadian artists and arts professionals, the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) released its “Arts in Transition” report. Amongst other findings, the report concluded that education, training and funding of artists in Canada tend to continue emphasizing “modernist traditions” that place primary value on the artist as solitary creator – an approach oriented overwhelmingly to the development of artistic skills. While the report acknowledged that this model “has produced and continues to produce many exceptional artists and works of art,” the CCA also voiced the concern that many younger artists find the model confining, unable to accommodate their desire to work more closely with communities and to incorporate social and ecological issues into their art“ (5, 6).

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.022
Scholarly communication0.0150.004
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.164 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre Review→Same topicArt Education and Development→French-language works237,207→