Applied Ethics of Public Art: Reflexivity, Social Support Structures, and Anti-Colonial Obligations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author examines applied ethics of public art in action, highlighting how using applied ethics in public art calls on critical reflexivity, ethical approaches learned from social art and access-focused practices, other community-responsive frameworks, and anticolonial obligations. Challenging normative and market-driven ethical standards, this analysis foregrounds applied ethics as an active, inclusive, and dialogue-driven process, shaped by lived experiences and critical standpoints. Drawing examples from contemporary Canadian contexts, including artists’ practices and the “Research 101” manifesto, the author emphasizes the importance of positionality, social support structures, and acknowledgement of institutional histories in ethical decision-making. This text also includes an examination of the impact of research ethics review processes on artists’ approaches and practices. It offers a critical summary of the history leading to institutionalized ethical frameworks and tools and their applications today. In gathering together these practice examples and histories, the author recognizes an applied ethics of public art in Canada as a living process characterized by reflexive awareness of positionality, recognition of inherent support structures (such as kinship and social networks), awareness of institutional and rights-based ethics histories, recognition of community demands for situated ethics, and the need to meet anti-colonial obligations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".