MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018269168

DANCE IN THE ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO 1977 AND 2017

2019· dissertation· en· W7018269168 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOCAD University Open Research Repository (OCAD University) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceContemporary danceChoreographyModern danceDance improvisationConcert danceThe artsVisitor pattern
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) is renowned as a pre-eminent visual arts museum in Canada, it has also featured dance performances since the late 1970s. Historically, a first wave of dance in art museums took place in the 1920s when choreographers, in dialogue with artists, formulated a new vision for dance that broke from the standards of classical ballet. A second wave occurred in the 1960s–70s when sweeping and radical changes in society propelled experimental dance into alternative venues such as museums. A third wave, beginning in the 1990s, brought dance into museum spaces and stemmed from the perspective of institutional critique. This thesis examines two dance performances held at the AGO, exemplifying the second and third waves: Missing Associates’ Solo Improvisation (1977) and Tanya Lukin Linklater’s Sun Force (2017). I will draw on the literature and files at the AGO to analyze the institutional philosophies and exhibitionary practices that led to incorporating dance in these time periods. My core research shows how dance in museums evolved beyond an entertainment function of enhancing the visitor experience to playing a key role in an ongoing critique of the museum. Dance in the museum also expands curatorial practice beyond the visual sense; the movements of bodies transgresses the implicit hierarchies that have restricted both the display of objects and the activities of subjects. I argue that dance creates a more liberated museum experience and a deeper understanding of the visitor’s relationship to art and society. Incorporating dance offers an opportunity to reshape the institutional structure from within and provides a means for the art museum to re-vitalize its connection to the community it represents and serves.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.265 · 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