Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, Amanda Ravetz, Anne Douglas, and Kathleen Coussens worked with improvisation in the context of an experimental drawing process. Following workshops with artists Marina Abramović and Bronwyn Platten, the author wrote a score that involved sipping water slowly and drawing over an eight-week period. Drawing, performed for its own sake, produced a space of reverie. Interviews with participants and reflective notes made after work with the score suggest that beyond allowing us to focus on our bodily awareness, the experiment also brought to light ambivalent feelings about our prior training and existing skills. Interpreting these feelings as failure and loss, the paper draw links between reverie, illusion, and disillusionment and Gary Peters’ “ironic model” of improvisation (The Philosophy of Improvisation. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2009. 94-6). However, where Peters avoids accounts of improvisation that focus on relationships between improvisors, the paper argues that reverie opens up a richly paradoxical space between improvisor and improvisor, as well as between improvisor and improvised, producing (shared) moments of rupture in which failure itself can signal new beginnings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".