Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competing Anti-Censorships and Mixed Legal OutcomesNegotiations between media arts communities and state agencies, as well as negotiations among movement constituents, contributed to the struggle over definitions.The regulations in the Theatres Act and their enforcement by the Ontario Board of Censors (OCB) constrained media arts practices in very real ways, and interacting with such legal bureaucracies prompted artists and exhibitors to revise their views about the social and cultural legitimacy of their practices.As a result, the cultural practice of media arts can be seen as a product of law, and the legal rules governing this practice can be seen as a product of culture; "the meaning of each is bound up in the other and in the complex entanglement of law and culture." 1 Rather than merely a set of "negative prohibitions" or "positive laws, " legal processes interacted with articulations by cultural citizens in the disciplining of conduct and the normalization of ideas about what counted and did not count as legitimate forms of communication for the public domain.A key arena for the struggle over definitions and the rationality of cultural practices was the courts.This chapter focuses on a series of court battles that took different judicial paths.In these cases, the organizers of the 1981 Canadian Images Festival in Peterborough became defendants in a criminal trial after police laid charges under the Theatres Act for the first time since the first version of the Act's inception in 1911; members of the nonprofit Ontario Film and Video Appreciation Society administered the first set of constitutional challenges
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 | 0.036 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".