Curatorial Care: The Art of Noticing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the art of noticing as a methodological response to the need for deliberate models of care within curation. Stories of noticing are framed throughout this work as relational in nature, as acts of love and hospitality, as cultivating belonging, as interdependent, as countering indifference, and as a slow process. Noticing is presented as integral to the overall act of curatorial care through which art communities cultivate art institutions. The work turns to theoretical frameworks from Disability Arts and care theorists that support pathways for caring engagement in curation. These methodological explorations are articulated in practice-based examples from Toronto art institutions Workman Arts’ and Tangled Arts + Disability, which includes an interview conducted with Workman Arts. The exhibition, The Art of Noticing (March 28-31, 2025) at Ignite Gallery (East) features the work of artists Michele Anne-Marie Dickson, Naomi Beth Hill, Sophia Kyungwon Kim, and Don Kwan and acts as a case study for this explored methodology of noticing, serving as examples of the materiality of noticing embodied in the artwork and art practices of the four artists.
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 | 0.030 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".