MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7140310319 · doi:10.3138/jcs-2024-0029

Joyce Wieland’s <i>Defend the Earth</i> (1972): Forging an Eco-public

2025· article· fr· W7140310319 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Johanne Sloan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrafts, Textile, and Design
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)ForgingStatement (logic)Work (physics)Inclusion (mineral)World War II

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian artist Joyce Wieland’s quilt-like Defend the Earth (1972), a work of public art installed in the National Science Library in Ottawa, had rarely been seen or written about over the past 50 years, until its inclusion in Joyce Wieland: Heart On, a 2025 retrospective exhibition. Wieland had previously made environmentally oriented artworks, but the scale and ambition of this seven-metre-long textile work deserve to be studied in relation to the radical, citizen-oriented ecological activism that swept across Canada and many other parts of the world in the 1960s and early 1970s. This article focuses on the artwork’s use of language, problematizing the imperative statement “Defend the Earth” by asking whose voice is uttering these words, and who (what addressee, what public) the words were intended for. The medium chosen to deliver this message was also crucial: sewn and embroidered cloth, resembling traditional quilts. Wieland was indeed at the forefront of a wave of feminist artists who were reclaiming and reinventing so-called women’s work. It is therefore argued that, with Defend the Earth, Joyce Wieland invented a new kind of ethical public art that combined both ecological and feminist politics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0380.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCrafts, Textile, and DesignFrench-language works237,207