MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trauma and Art

2025· reference-entry· en· W4410758087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa Saltzman, Eric Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Are there any signs of trauma?” The question, posed by Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Cassie Stuart, emerges from the realm not of fact but of fiction. A British crime drama, Unforgotten draws each season’s plot from a cold case, a murder victim long buried, even if not forgotten. Her question is but one marker of the degree to which a language of trauma has permeated popular culture and the public sphere. Such was not always the case. In the aftermath of World War I, Freud’s analysis of victims of childhood sexual abuse dovetailed with his work on shell-shocked veterans, and the term trauma emerged as a clinical category. But it was not until the 1970s, when again, psychiatric work on victims of sexual abuse coincided with work on veterans, this time, from the Vietnam War, that notions of trauma, and the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), entered popular discourse and culture. In the 1990s, trauma began to animate humanistic inquiry, as both a theoretical framework and a structuring subject, in some instances, echoing and amplifying post-structuralist concerns with the limits of language and representation. Notably, post-Holocaust studies emerged as a particularly vital site for such early scholarship. In the decades that followed, the number of articles, monographs, and anthologies dedicated to trauma increased exponentially. That we can now name a discipline, trauma studies, is a testament to that work. That we can now assemble a bibliography dedicated to art and trauma speaks to the role that art historians have played in the foundation and furthering of that scholarly arena, if not in some small part for the primacy of visuality in the act of bearing witness. In 1998, five art historians presented papers in “Trauma and Representation,” a session organized by Lisa Saltzman for the annual meeting of the College Art Association: Griselda Pollock, Michael Stone Richards, Judith Rodenbeck, Eric Rosenberg, and Isabelle Wallace. The session, which filled a Toronto hotel ballroom to capacity, inspired Saltzman and Rosenberg to build on that session to produce an edited volume, Trauma and Visuality in Modernity, published in 2006 by Dartmouth College/University Press of New England. And it is that collaborative endeavor that grounds and motivates the bibliography that follows, one that aims to capture something of the field that took shape in and adjacent to the discipline of art history and to take stock of certain foundational, formative, and influential contributions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.333
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207