Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores two of the last foreign exhibitions to be held in the Mao period and one from the immediate post-Mao years: landscape exhibitions from Australia, Canada, and France held between 1975 and 1978. As cultural diplomacy exhibitions, they were all government-sponsored initiatives, and they fulfilled a clear instrumental diplomatic or political purpose at a time when China was seeking to rebuild relationships with Western countries after decades of isolation and hostility. Yet while these exhibitions were all professionally curated, including some of the best paintings representing their countries’ national artistic achievements, the reception and impact of the first two were heavily constrained by the rigid political and cultural context of their transitional time at the tail end of the ten-year Cultural Revolution. By contrast, the blockbuster French exhibition was held at the beginning of the reform and opening-up era. Comparing these three exhibitions thus makes possible analysis of the under-researched topic of global artistic exchanges with socialist China during this period of transition, focusing on why landscape painting was chosen as the preferred theme at this historical juncture, and what kinds of “decadent capitalist artworks” were considered permissible to display when the socialist door gradually started to open.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".