MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400262029 · doi:10.1080/21500894.2024.2367968

Between presence and absence: signature, signature style and agency of the kalamkari makers

2024· article· en· W4400262029 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rajarshi Sengupta

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Art · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaIndian Institute of Technology KanpurRoyal Ontario Museum
KeywordsSignature (topology)Style (visual arts)Agency (philosophy)Political scienceComputer securityComputer scienceHistoryEpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophyArchaeologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does the signature of an artisan or the signature style of a collective or individual practice fully account for the agency of their makers? An in-depth investigation of this issue, drawing on the theorisation of agency and identity, is presented while interpreting three kalamkari textiles of Southeastern India: a rare eighteenth-century kalamkari featuring an inscription in Telugu and two textiles by the late Nageswara Rao and Nandam Venkateswara Rao, Andhra Pradesh. A close visual analysis of the textiles is complemented by archival studies, interviews and insights drawn from dyeing processes to examine this issue. This study reflects on the interrelations between regional, collective and individual identities of the artisans and critically assesses the significance of artisanal processes to comprehend the makers’s merit. The interdependence of signature, signature style and the narratives of the kalamkari makers are set in conversation in this exploration to foreground artisanal voices and actions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld ArtSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207