Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".