Bibliographic record
Abstract
As our world becomes more and more interconnected, a key to moving forward and evolving is to encourage collaborations. Meaningful (creative) collaborations have the capacity to foster a sense of community and partnership as well as to create the space for new ideas, advancements, and solutions to old problems. At the root (and core) of collaboration is communication: without this, collaboration would be all but impossible. This, for me, was a central idea behind the Santorini Voice Symposium, although it has taken many months since the event for me to see and state the idea clearly. During the conception, planning, and event, I was operating on instinct, that is, on the basis of a deep curiosity about bringing together these two worlds (the artistic/creative and the academic/intellectual), both of which hold profound personal meaning for me. In retrospect, the fact that the mission was somewhat unclear, and that the event was lovingly labelled experiment without an hypothesis, is likely what made it so successful. There was no agenda. There was no goal, as such. There was merely the desire to bring together two groups of wonderful people in one of the loveliest places on earth. These were people I believed needed to meet. I knew Kristin Linklater's work would resonate deeply with the philosophers (as it had done and continues to do with me). Mainly I was confident that these two groups of people (actors and philosophers) would love getting to know one another and that something would happen. As it turns out, together we fell down (or first created and then fell down) a rabbit hole of sorts, and while I can attest to the fact that the symposium had a profound impact on me and on all those involved, I believe it also has deep ramifications and importance for our world(s). I began to get a hint of this potential worldwide impact a few days after the symposium ended. An incredibly strong, wild, crazy(-making) wind swept over Santorini. The windstorm lasted about four days and the locals joked about clothes being torn off clotheslines and ending up in Crete. Perhaps it was not a joke: the wind was strong enough to knock me over! It is known as the Meltemi, and is famous for seeming to blow from (and to) all directions at once. In the same way that a strong, deep sigh of relief can clear out feelings and experiences to make way for what is next, I felt that this wind was taking the intense work we had done together and blowing it far and wide! It was both spreading the word and clearing space for whatever was to come next. I relaxed into the idea that though I was desperate somehow to share what we had done with as many people as possible, this would happen quite naturally without my having to push. And (thank you, Meltemi!) that seems to be the case. As I reflect on this extraordinary experience these many months later, I see, for myself, three distinct phases of the project: Phase (1), the conception, the dream, and the planning; Phase 2, the event itself, the realization, the doing, Phase 3 (the one we are in currently), the describing of that doing, the distilling, and the telling, in order to disseminate our experience to others. I will address each of these in what follows. But first, a preliminary note: while I have a deep respect for the written word (and, admittedly, fears about not being a good writer), I also have a strong bias in favour of the spoken voice as the best medium for communication. I believe in the voice as a medium and am much more comfortable speaking than writing, more confident that I am better able to make myself heard/understood when speaking than when writing. Luckily for me, it is clear that there are those who believe that their true voices are revealed in their writing. As an actor, for example, I am grateful to the playwrights who have expressed themselves deeply and fully and given me fantastic characters to study. I wish so much, however, that I could be having a conversation with you (the reader) about this event. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".