Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four artists who are today relatively or almost entirely unknown – one woman and three men – nevertheless played a part in the aesthetic upheavals that led to abstraction in 1940s Montreal. Very active in the art milieu throughout the decade, Marian Dale Scott, Fritz Brandtner, Henry Eveleigh, and Gordon Webber captured the attention of critics of the time, who employed the term “abstract art” to describe both non-objective works and bold formal explorations that retained some reference to visible reality. An examination of these artists’ practices reveals a remarkable openness to international contemporary art trends – French, German, British, and American. Their work and its critical reception conjure a complex picture of the debates on abstraction that took place in Montreal during the 1940s, so often reduced to the controversies surrounding the emergence of the Automatiste movement. The artistic innovations of Paul-Émile Borduas and his group and the radical tone of their 1948 manifesto Refus global cemented their status as Quebec’s abstract avant-garde but also had the effect of eclipsing other visions of abstraction being explored during the same period. This book reinstates the oeuvres of these forgotten protagonists in the narrative of abstract art, illustrating how their practices encompassed a variety of themes: emotion, science, human experience in the broadest sense – but also, as the Second World War unfolded, the violence that marked their era.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".