On site, out of sight: viewing devices in Canadian land art, 1969-1980
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the diversity of materials and settings chosen by artists, the artworks of interest to this study are united by their operation as viewing devices that transformatively mediate the beholder's view of the sites in which the works are located.My central argument is that three viewing devices featured in Canadian land art-frames, viewfinders, and apertures-deliberately destabilize the conception of site.These devices undermine the commonly assumed stability, visual coherence, fixity, and boundaries of sites by producing new, visually experienced sites displaying unstable, mutable, even contradictory appearances.I further underscore that these views respond critically to issues in Canadian culture, history, and regional politics in the post-Centenary era.To develop this argument, the Introduction situates Canadian land art in relation to existing scholarship on theories of visual perception and site specificity in 20 th -century outdoor art (predominantly devoted to American and European art).The Introduction specifies this study's original contributions to previous scholarship before mapping the structure of the dissertation.Chapter One defines essential terms, concepts, and debates, and proposes a contextual definition of visually oriented land art in Canada.Each of the subsequent four chapters, chronologically and thematically ordered, analyzes a particular type of viewing device and model of site in an
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".