Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I will discuss three communicative acts: an ephemeral artwork InMemory; a narrative The art of being lost; and a paper Ephemeral Art: Mourning and Loss. These were presented, respectively, at the Salina Art Centre, Kansas; Emotional Geography Conference, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario; and (Im)permanence: Cultures In/Out of Time at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. These pieces deal with the same subject, but are presented in different modes reflecting the requirements of different sites a gallery, a conference, and a book. All three aspired to creativity as well as rigour, to articulate intuitive as well as empirical knowledge. I will discuss these works in terms of site specificity and integrated practice, rather than opposite poles of a creative spectrum, which places text at one end and image at the other. I will demonstrate how each mode has informed the other and how each has benefited from the particular requirement imposed by the site. The site here is not just the physical location but includes the anticipated audience, the environment, and the atmosphere. The works are interactive and are akin to the concept in communication analysis of recipient design. I hope this case study may be useful in providing an alternative to viewing writing in art and design as inherently problematic. Instead, I offer an analysis of a multifaceted practice in which the I is always present, implicitly or explicitly.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.118 |
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".