MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027982048 · doi:10.3402/jac.v6.23699

Performing the web: negotiating affect and online aesthetics

2014· article· en· W2027982048 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AESTHETICS & CULTURE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandbox (software development)Visitor patternNegotiationMedia studiesAdventureVisual artsWorld Wide WebSociologyHistoryArtEngineeringComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On October 1, 2011, following its public debut at a gallery in Toronto, the Sandbox Project made its appearance online, timidly emerging from the bursting folds of the popular Wordpress Content Management System (CMS). The Sandbox Project is an itinerant community art and activism laboratory consisting of a series of live events and a complementary online platform, both conceived as a collaborative effort of countless individuals. The project explores ways in which respectful and anti-oppressive processes of collaboration, the formation of alliances, and new lines of solidarity may occur between activists and artists working with different media and creative tactics. Now in its third year of existence, the website combines different CMS formats to experiment with new forms of online interaction and to respond to the diversity of interventions featured during the live events. Rather than functioning as a space that simply records and documents each event, the website took it upon itself to play with the live events (the laboratory) dynamically: it sought to give the visitor a sense of the vibrant atmosphere that the participants had been experiencing during live events, in order to elicit further online interactions and initiatives among past and current participants. The website and the live events aspired to complete each other, to become together one continuous and contiguous performance. But to what extent can the vibrancy of human behavior be played and conveyed online? This paper critically reflects on the difficulties in incorporating the project into today's manifold, yet homogeneous and homogenizing, online publishing options. In acknowledging this difficult process of mediation, it urges to reflect on the material and conceptual complications emerging from the involvement of diverse and far-apart communities and individuals.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.254 · 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