MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027722973 · doi:10.3138/ctr.162.008

<i>Popularity</i>: The Spectator as Statistic

2015· article· en· W2027722973 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityExhibitionCounterfeitVisual artsStatisticAdvertisingArtIntervention (counseling)Media studiesPsychologySociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In this interview, Joshua Schwebel discusses his public intervention project Popularity. Over the course of a single, five-week exhibition, Joshua Schwebel paid people to attend a gallery as counterfeit spectators. Schwebel did so to artificially inflate the popularity of the show. The action was executed without the knowledge or consent of the staff of the artist-run centre, or the artist whose show was inexplicably popular. Schwebel’s “art public” of thirty-five people per day attended a single show every day for five weeks, standing in the gallery for a minimum of ten minutes. In total almost 1,000 counterfeit visits were generated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicArt History and Market AnalysisFrench-language works237,207