MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404913326 · doi:10.4000/12t97

Parallel play: Experiments in picturing the near Arctic

2023· article· en· W4404913326 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. D. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueCivilisations · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Occupational TherapistsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticComputer scienceThe arcticEnvironmental scienceGeographyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last 50 years, the circumpolar world has moved from the periphery to the centre of international policy and public culture. This paper explores how art and anthropology can work in parallel to create visual and textual representations that ‘picture the north’ as heterogeneous, complex, and unfolding rather than reproducing polarising views of the arctic as a place of extreme fragility or boundless opportunity. It describes a multimodal installation, Mackenzie Place, that is the outcome of a decade-long engagement between an anthropologist and photographer. Mackenzie Place is a series of still and moving images that provide an in-depth study of a lone high-rise residential tower in Hay River, Northwest Territories –a multi-ethnic town north of the 60th parallel in Canada. We use the term “parallel play” to describe our method of working alongside each other in generative, but not necessarily collaborative, ways. Rather than attempting to have our disciplinary, personal, and aesthetic commitments converge into a coherent singular effort, we maintained proximity around a shared visual/ethnographic anchor to explore what new media may ‘say’, or make say-able, about northern life worlds.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivilisationsSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207