MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W887259456

Documentary Protocols = Protocoles documentaires (1967-1975)

2010· book· en· W887259456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Bénichou, Vincent Bonin, Marion Froger, Kristy A. Holmes, Felicity Tayler, David Tomás, Michèle Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueE-Artexte (Artexte) · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionPeriod (music)Reading (process)Documentary evidenceVisual artsState (computer science)Library scienceHistoryArtPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceAesthetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Documentary Protocols (1967-1975) is the third part of an ambitious project that took place over a three-year period, and that also included two exhibitions (Documentary Protocols I and Documentary Protocols II) curated and presented at the Gallery in 2007 and 2008. This major historical publication reproduces over 250 documents from the 1960s and 70s drawn from 10 archival fonds and includes an introduction, a contextualizing essay and 6 case studies. In the mid-1960s, Canadian artists suffered from cultural isolation as museums were indifferent to their work and the international art market seemed beyond reach. Artists made up for this state of exclusion by creating alternative spaces in which they could present experimental work and offer services to members of their communities. Documentary Protocols (1967-1975) addresses a historical moment in which the investment of the concept of information by artists converged with the role of administrator they bestowed upon themselves. The historical trajectory of these self-managed organizations can now be observed in their archival fonds, where the results of partially realized utopias exist alongside material evidence of the artists’ labour. Following the decompartmentalization characterizing the period, the editorial structure of this publication provides equal visibility both to the sampling of documents and to the case studies based on the close reading of these items" -- Publisher's web site.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1560.017

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.284 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE-Artexte (Artexte)Same topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207