"An Invitation for Disaster"—Embracing the 'Double Failure' of Improvisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I consider the representational and relational aesthetics of 'improvisational moments,' a term I am using to encompass both the moments of encounter between improvisers and audience members and the art that arises from these encounters. These moments cannot help but be evaluated—both relationally and representationally—by all stakeholders. From such an evaluation, a judgement of whether or not these improvisational moments have succeeded or failed almost certainly arises. An examination of failure in improvisation is of interest due to the likelihood that many (if not all) improvising artists have encountered improvisational moments which they have judged failures. Because there are two areas of expectation by which improvisational moments can be judged, those being in terms of representational and relational aesthetic standards, improvisational moments can be said to 'doubly fail.' This paper demonstrates that ultimately this 'double failure' can be 'doubly generative' of new creative products.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".