Bibliographic record
Abstract
Misunderstandings between Art and LawAfter twenty years of freely exhibiting film and video in a variety of noncommercial venues in Ontario, artists, nonprofit exhibitors, art galleries, and film festivals were thrown into tumult when the Ontario Board of Censors (OCB) broadened its scope to include not only the public exhibition of feature-length, commercial films but also the screenings of small, nonprofit arts organizations and events.In early 1980, under the leadership of Chair Mary Brown, the OCB began requiring that artist-run, nonprofit film exhibitors license all projectors and submit work for approval.1 Although all public exhibition of film and video in Ontario was covered by the OCB's jurisdiction, arts exhibitors had until this time fallen outside the board's notice.Artists' media works were now unexpectedly subject to cuts and bans, and arts exhibitors were suddenly required to submit all films and video destined for public exhibition for prior review by the censor board.Artists and arts exhibitors found themselves roped into an administrative system of film and video censorship that was intensifying due to the conservative pressures associated with, for example, Toronto's Clean Up Yonge Street campaign, discussed in the previous chapter.Whereas the board maintained a relatively symbiotic relationship with the mainstream film industry in Ontario -with the exception of some controversial cuts and bans to such mainstream films as Louis Malle's Pretty Baby (1978) and Volker Schlöndorff 's The Tin Drum (1979) -its policies were fundamentally
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 | 0.033 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".