Through Clio's Lens: Exploring Disciplinary, Intellectual, and Historical Orientations in the History of Photography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This conceptually driven exploratory discussion of history of photography serves to capture and situate the use of photography and photographic evidence in history journals. Since its invention in 1839 in Europe, photography has evolved to assume its near hegemonic ubiquity throughout the world, permeating media in general. Gaining insight into the history of photography as a disciplinary formation and specialization addresses disciplinary issues beyond the confines of art history, of which photography has been identified traditionally as a sub-field. To identify global and overarching characteristics of the literature, Historical Abstracts was consulted in order to collect and classify articles in the years 1961–1970, 1971–1980, 1981–1990, 1991–2000, and 2001–2010. Further analysis of the data revealed major characteristics of history of photography that appeared in a spectrum of journals beyond the purview of art history journals. Selected subjects were used to further articulate the complex nature of the history of photography, bringing into focus general disciplinary and intellectual currents animating these findings.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.057 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it