<i>Subjectivity<>Culture<>Communications<>Intermedia: A Meditation on the "impure interactions" of Performance and the "in-between" Space of Intimacy in a Wired World</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This“meditation”pursues four objectives.The first is to provide an introduction to a variety of psychological interpretations of the concept of intimacy in terms of its motivations, characteristics, and functions within the larger understanding of the construction, maintenance, and expansion of the “self” in relationship and interaction. The second objective is to attempt to locate these psychological observations on intimacy within broader socio-anthropological frameworks, in order to consider if and how they are manifest in cultural and ideological developments.The third objective is to overlay these initial findings withmultiple theories of communications and media influence on individuals and communities, as they relate to the reformation of and potential for intimacy in contemporary mediatized societies. The pursuit here is of a composite “logic” of resonance, interconnection, and generalized causality within these overlapping evolutionary spheres (psychology, sociology, communications). The fourth objective is to elucidate (as opposed to“define”) the elusive concept of intermedia as it is understood, analyzed, and enacted by contemporary practitioners and theorists, with a particular emphasis on the role of intimacy in terms of intention, design, and experience. Finally, the emerging theoretical insights generated are tentatively applied to a performance by the intermedial, site-specific performance troupe Bluemouth Inc.Presents. In the process of these inquiries, I hope to establish intermedia—and, specifically, intermedial intimacy—as the recognizable (though not necessarily inevitable) offspring of the previously explored personal, cultural, and ideological developments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".