Unsettling Agreements: Law & Art in The Witness Blanket, and in The Witness Blanket Stewardship Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper offers some reflections on the productivity of complicated entanglements of art and law for those engaged with contemporary challenges of legal pluralism. The context for these reflections is Canada, with its fraught colonial history, and the legacy of its (non)engagement with Indigenous peoples and their legal orders. Here, situated in ongoing conversations about ‘truth’ and ‘reconciliation’, the example of The Witness Blanket, a work of art responding to a deep failure of law, is first taken up. Then, The Witness Blanket Stewardship Agreement is explored, as a piece of law, responding to the needs of a piece of art. In each case, the focus is on the ways both art and law, as deeply collaborative practices, can open up pathways for more productive intersocietal forms of agreement to guide people in working and living with each other in worlds marked by legal pluralism.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.121 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".