Review of <i>The Painted Valley: Artists along Alberta's Bow\nRiver, 1845-2000,<i> By Christopher Armstrong\nand H. V. Nelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As books about art go, The Painted Valley is an unusual undertaking because neither Christopher Armstrong nor H. V. Nelles is a specialist in the field of Canadian art. Both emeritus professors at Toronto's York University, they are environmental historians who, in the process of researching a book about southern Alberta's 600-kilometer-Iong Bow River, "stumbled" upon a "cache of pictures" inspired by that stony ribbon of blue: paintings, photographs, and works on paper found largely in the collections of Calgary's Glenbow Museum, Banff's Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies, and the Edmontonbased Alberta Foundation for the Arts.\nThe contents of the cache-as they discovered- were the product of a diverse group of observers categorized in the book's chapters as imperial topographers {including military artists}, railway romantics {commissioned by Canadian Pacific Railway}, impressionists {including the Ontario-based Group of Seven}, and finally those who could actually call the river and its valley "home." In this latter group, which spans a period of over seventy years, are such early figures as Lars Haukaness, A. C. Leighton, and Walter J. Phillips to name a few, followed by the more modernist energies of Marion Nicoll, Illingworth (Buck) Kerr, and later Ted Godwin and others. In all cases, as Armstrong and Nelles assert, their representations of the Alberta river and its valley were shaped as much by certain art styles in Western art as they were by the less obvious matter of changing cultural perceptions of nature. In a nice turn of phrase, the authors hoped to see the river through the art and instead ended up seeing art through the river (art, it should be said, that is poorly served by the quality of some of the book's color reproductions).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".