MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416929726 · doi:10.1080/21502552.2025.2569116

Still present, no longer perceived: Monuments on, and off

2025· article· en· W4416929726 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeroen Boomgaard

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Art Dialogue · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
Keywordsnot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we argue that a monument’s commemorative, artistic, and political essence can be turned off by its audiences. In this way, monuments find an afterlife in the everyday; they open to new horizons of ordinary significance, practicality, and accessibility. We compare three distinct approaches for creating an afterlife with monuments: from above, from below, and from both sides. Commemorative public art is framed as a medium for monuments to pass from active to dormant, and vice versa. First, a Nazi-era monument in Hamburg, Germany, was officially turned by publicly commissioned artistic intervention into a site of counterremembrance. Second, a monument in Montreal, Canada, shows how artistic, social performances can create bottom-up, unforeseen, and potentially transgressive functions to monuments. To illustrate the interplay of both top-down and bottom-up artistic approaches to bringing new life to monuments, a colonial site in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, shows how successive generations can recurringly revise a contested memory site. In the final section, we argue that monuments are never turned off for good. Where monuments can fade into the background, they can also have their salience agonistically turned back on again through artistic activism and adversarial forms of remembrance.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.033
Scholarly communication0.0190.008
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Art DialogueSame topicPublic Spaces through ArtFrench-language works237,207