Review of <i>Saskatchewan: Uncommon Views</i> Photographsby John Conway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his acknowledgments, John Conway writes: "I have 'gone out photographing' with only one other person in my life, my friend Garth Abrams. When we arrived at a place, we usually walked off in different directions, each preferring our own way." That statement defines Saskatchewan: Uncommon Views. As a Saskatchewan landscape photographer, I too resonate deeply with the solitude the Great Plains invites, if not commands. Conway's spartan landscapes form the mouthpiece for a haunting lament shared by all who choose to spend time alone here. To recognize these unadorned one hundred sweeps and unpretentious corners is to acknowledge our own unfinished edges, and to confront vast space as an end in itself rather than a medium through which to escape into wishful thinking. The enigma, I believe, has to do with the pushpull, love-hate, hot-cold dualities that the land fosters. Initially it can be a daunting proposition to spend long periods of solitude in a place that feels like nowhere. Conway's landscapes, laced with their patches and traces of human intention, past and present, invite us to show up alone and to pay full attention. As a chronicler, he records, not as an occupation but with an enquiring mind. By being totally present, hunched into a tripod, he allows the landscape to speak in ways that present-day occupants might not hear, perhaps because the all-too-familiar scenery has become a mere backdrop to the task of feeding a family or conducting a profitable agribusiness. A common reaction might very well be "Now why would you want to take a picture of that?" The most poignant answer lies in the images themselves. Each photograph evokes its own dialogue with the viewer. I particularly appreciate the generous layout of one image per double page. The book is designed to invite one to linger and contemplate rather than, like big business interests, to plow through the landscapes. The accompanying text is provided as a mere whisper, the pictures speaking louder than words. The essays, though not essential to the book, provide three unique frames through which to gain perspective on Conway's epic portfolio. This is a book to be absorbed, if not also dissected.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.014 |
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".