EXHIBITION ACTIVITIES OF CHINESE ARTISTS IN RUSSIA IN THE SYSTEM OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 21ST CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is devoted to one of the aspects of the development of intercultural dialogue between Russia and China, namely intercultural communication. The analysis of the exhibition projects implemented during 2007-2022 shows that a new system of intercultural communication has now developed, which manifests itself in the approaches to organising exhibitions of Chinese artists in Russia in the first quarter of the 21st century, and eventually gave rise to three main forms of exhibition activities. The first form is associated with partner exhibitions of museums and galleries of the two countries, which are mainly devoted to the art of the past. The second form is due to the interest in the contemporary art of New China, which the curators introduce to the Russian public. The third form is the organisation of joint exhibitions of Chinese and Russian authors and reports on the conducted plein-air practice in Russia. The article shows how the existing cross-border art exchange has led to a change in the structure of exhibition activities, and the new structure, in turn, is changing the system of intercultural communication.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".