Bibliographic record
Abstract
When artists draw on materials and techniques from an area such as science, they must be able to keep free from demonstration and verification. It is to be good at having a lyrical approach, imagining “the Earth is still flat and considering science and technology as mysterious and fantastic tools. In the proposed image, a model of the tetrahedron designed by the Canadian scientist and inventor Alexander Graham Bell as a module for the gliders is altered. change is made by the torsion of a plane surface, through developing formal ambiguity, thus depriving the object of its aerodynamic function. model was then made available to a group of people with whom the artist opened a dialogue. Hence a spontaneous conversation was triggered about the nature of the object itself, from which it turned out a kaleidoscope of assumptions, definitions, visual projections, constituting the series No stars. Some stretches of the dialogue: There are surfaces to which you can adhere in a metaphorical sense; The rotate plane is a lever that multiplies these surfaces toward infinity; Ironic instruments punctuate the experience; I can still imagine the earth as flat. Reflection concerns the inevitable sophistication produced by the attempt to define a form. And this sophistication is a problem we have in common. In fact a strong ambiguity is always encountered when it is sought to define an object, for the object is not merely placed in a space, but is itself a space. By de-contextualizing the object we have a first difference of meaning and by altering it we have a second one. Thus it becomes as a lever, which projects an endless becoming and an unbreakable repositioning of itself, transporting us in a field of huge possibilities. “No stars” is a work in progress based on a single rule: neither the object nor its shadow will ever match the shape of a star. by Alia Scalvini (the work in its entirety can be viewed at: http://aliascalvini.altervista.org/Sito_2/Works/Pagine/Thetraedron.html )
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.019 |
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".