Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a material culture-based case study of two bandolier bags dated to the late nineteenth or early twentieth century in the Agnes Etherington Art Center collection in Kingston, Canada. The floral motifs that decorate these two bags are not made from porcupine quills, nor are all of them bilaterally symmetrical as in “traditional” Indigenous art. Instead, they are made from glass beads, and most of the floral designs are asymmetrical. The bags’ surface patterns and materials were made possible through international trade, which facilitated the merging of European and other global designs, materials, and forms with Indigenous visual and material culture. Contemporary Western anthropological discourse framed these Indigenous objects as “hybrids” and alleged that they distorted the original meaning of such styles in a European context while simultaneously “corrupting” traditional Indigenous art and culture. Such art forms were denied a place in modernity due to their supposed inauthenticity. Ironically, “authentic” Indigenous art and material culture was likewise barred from being considered “modern” due to its hand-made, “preindustrial” nature. Connecting North American historical developments with discourse on Indigenous modernisms, I argue that on the contrary, these bags evince their makers’ conscientious engagement with modernity and can be considered modern Indigenous art.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".