ARTiculating Canadian Identities: The Canada Council Art Bank’s Mycelial Presence and Influence in the Realm of Canadian Fine Art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifty years (1972 -2022) of the Canada Council Art Bank's history are examined in this thesis through circumstances surrounding the evolution of their collection and self-perceived identity.This thesis uses the model of a mycorrhizal network to describe the Art Bank as both fluid and responsive over three distinct phases, each encompassed by symbiotic relationships, a mixed mandate, and "working" artworks.Whereas Phase One (1972 -1999) is distinguished by ambitious expansions and subsequent disintegration, Phase Two (2000 -2015) is defined by the Art Bank's revival and strategic restructure.Phase Three (2016 -2022) concerns difficult cyclical histories that must be actively contended with in the present.Accompanied by case studies of exhibitions and data models, each phase considers the Art Bank's activities and operations through mycelial characteristics, demonstrating the intertwined, multilayered nature of identity.As in a fungal ecosystem, countless factors (in this case, people) contributed to the formation of this project.It is impossible to name everyone who supported my work, but I am thankful for everyone who did, and I hope our paths cross many more times in the future.I am beyond grateful for the guidance and kindness of my co-supervisors, Felicity Tayler and Ming Tiampo, throughout this project.I am also thankful to the other members of my examination committee (Anne Dymond, Michael Windover, and Mitchell Frank) for their time and care in reviewing and discussing my work.At the Art Bank, Amy Jenkins spent hours discussing ideas, writing emails, and completing other tasks to move this research forward.Her enthusiasm and dedication enabled this work in many ways.Martha Young provided a wealth of resources and was always eager to find elusive information.Many employees at the Art Bank and the broader Canada Council contributed their knowledge, expertise, and perspectives to this research, whether formally through interviews, or informally through our interactions.I fully enjoyed learning from and with the nineteen people I interviewed for this thesis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".