Five (failed) attempts at a feminist revolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This discussion will draw upon histories, or at least stories, of performance and other transient art practices by women in Toronto from the late 70's to the present. Instances and questions about performance, re-performance, and re-embodiment have special significance for feminist practitioners. Performance art has also had an important effect on how we approach contemporary art, and how performative gestures infuse contemporary institutions. \n \nThe unruly bodies of women and performance artists have made work outside, inside alongside, in opposition to and in complete ignorance of the mechanisms and institutions for the collection and exhibition of contemporary art. \n \nThe world famous artist-run centre movement of Canada developed in part in order to allow publics to intersect with this work and other new and otherwise marginal practices. Throughout the 80's feminist artists continued to work in anew forms and forge new contexts; the Womens' Cultural Building is an example. Subsequently the archive of the WCB was exhibited, and the construction of this exhibition may be an interesting case study. \n \nI replaced the word ephemeral with the word transient in the title of this discussion because as many times as I have heard performance art referred to as ephemeral, I've never quite believed it. Fairies and wood nymphs are ephemeral, posters, leaflets and flyers may be ephemeral, my car keys are ephemeral – but performance is corporeal "meat joy", and sometimes demanding, and therefore its intersection with an institution is protean.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".