MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043053064

Refashioning and Reframing: Gender, Agency, and the Body in Jana Sterbak’s Remote Control II

2024· dissertation· en· W7043053064 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinterpretationContext (archaeology)SilhouetteRemote controlSculptureAgency (philosophy)QueerStyle (visual arts)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines Remote Control II (1989), a wearable sculpture by multidisciplinary artist Jana Sterbak. The sculpture references cage crinoline, a popular garment in Europe that was a staple in women’s wardrobes from 1856 until the late 1800s. Visually mimicking a birdcage, the sartorial style prioritized an idealized femininity, enforcing corporeal, cultural, and social control over the female body through immobilization, constriction, and threatening livelihoods. Remote Control II mimics this silhouette with added material and formal elements that highlight the crinoline’s controlling intention. Informed by feminist and queer methodologies and design histories, this thesis argues that Remote Control II is subversive in reappropriating the cage crinoline and transforming the silhouette into one that may offer agency and autonomy. To demonstrate my argument, I analyze the cage crinoline’s history, the broader cultural significance of clothing, and Sterbak’s reinterpretation to highlight how Remote Control II is effective in subverting the cage crinoline’s history through appropriation, material choices, and complicating gendered design elements. This thesis concludes by exploring Remote Control II’s relevance in our contemporary context at a time in which the dress no longer stands for singular femininity.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicFashion and Cultural TextilesFrench-language works237,207