État des dossiers d’artistes conservés dans les galeries, bibliothèques, archives, musées et centres d’artistes autogérés canadiens : Rapport.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce rapport présente les résultats d'une enquête en ligne bilingue (français/anglais) de 2022 envoyée à plus de 160 galeries, bibliothèques, archives, musées et centres d'artistes autogérés canadiens pour déterminer si et comment ils collectent et gèrent des dossiers d’artistes. Au total, il y a eu 90 répondants. \n \nLe rapport fournit un contexte sur l'état de la gestion des collections de dossiers d'artistes au Canada, et soutient que ce travail est effectué par un plus grand nombre d'organisations que ce que l'on sait actuellement, bien que de façon fragmentaire. Le rapport fournit également le contexte de l'étude elle-même, et il reproduit à la fois le questionnaire et les réponses anonymes. Une analyse préliminaire des données conclut le rapport.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".