Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carving its lines through México, Iceland, Canada, England and Australia, Scoreography: Compose-with a hole in the heart! investigates through research-creation, the creative potential of ‘a hole in the heart’. Through the creating and testing of four new techniques of research-creation; triggering, oothra, infoliating and scoring, this research project brings into language the living experience of a hole in the heart. While a hole in the heart is commonly understood as a congenital cardiac defect, this thesis activates visual art, creative writing and process philosophy to re-conceptualise this relation as a living hole – a self-organising assemblage of vital matter. We might experience these material holes as histories, as loss, as desire. The aim of this research is to develop new ways of experiencing and sharing the material holes that compose us and address the complex problem of how to transform a hole into an opening. Through Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts of ‘event’ and ‘desire’ I recognise a hole in the heart as a creative force in itself. Drawing on my own experience of a congenital hole in the heart this research examines this condition in the context of the 'morethan-human' (Manning, 2013). Through a focus on relationality I transform understandings of a hole in the heart away from the grip of its defective congenital holding, and open it instead as a productive, shared relation. The term practice-based research is commonly used in Australia to articulate a relationship between theoretical, contextual and practical enquiry, one in which research is created through practice. However, I investigate this project through ‘research-creation’, a process I encounter in 2013 during my international residency at the SenseLab, a Montréal-based laboratory for thought in motion. Research-creation is a propositional and experimental mode of activity that occurs ‘at the constitutive level of both art practice and theoretical research’ (Manning & Massumi, 2014, p. 89). In this project, I develop my own approach to research-creation, a process I name scoreography. Comprising 190 creative events including a public event at The Mission to Seafarers building in Melbourne on the 1st of December 2014, this research aims to activate as transversal experience the transformative potential of a hole in the heart. The creative work of this thesis (fictocritical assemblages of writing, video, photography, found objects and constructed situations) is the feeling, thinking, telling and making-public these events through scoreography’s emergent language of speculative eventing. This thesis invents and articulates scoreography as an original contribution to new knowledge in the fields of relational art-making and research-creation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".