Documentary Protocols = Protocoles documentaires (1967-1975)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"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 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 | 0.039 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.208 | 0.166 |
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".