MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2216034587 · doi:10.5072/prism/24997

Artistic Creation is Artistic Research: Substantiation through a Bimodal Framework

2015· article· en· W2216034587 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Willard

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Society for Aesthetics Graduate E-Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyClass (philosophy)AestheticsMode (computer interface)State (computer science)EpistemologySociologyArtVisual artsComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this dissertation is to disentangle and arrange a number of issues particular to the sphere of activity designated as artistic research. A bimodal conception of artistic research is proposed as a framework by which confusions in the discourse and in applications of artistic research may be avoided or resolved. Mode one indicates that artistic creation is in most instances ipso facto artistic research. A philosophical substantiation is offered for this claim. In brief, a work of art is considered to be a state of affairs, to use Wittgenstein’s terminology, of the artistic kind. The creation of a state of affairs of the artistic kind and the formulation of propositional belief about that state of affairs are claimed to be necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for artistic research to occur. A state of affairs of the artistic kind provides the artistic component of artistic research; however, the state of affairs in and of itself does not normally convey propositional belief and therefore does not satisfy the condition of research in artistic research. For artistic research to take place, propositional belief about the state of affairs of the artistic kind must be formulated. The site of the initiation of the research component of artistic research is thus located. In normal artistic practices, the class of activities commonly seen as art and the class of activities commonly seen as research exhibit significant class overlap and are inseparably intertwined in the vast majority of artistic creations. Mode two indicates delimited forms of artistic research. Mode two artistic research does not accept that the conditions of mode one are sufficient for artistic research and subsequently requires further epistemic justification or criteria. The further justification or criteria delimits the form of artistic research, usually within particular contexts for particular purposes. Clarity in the discourse of artistic research is promoted when the modes are clearly differentiated, when their purposes are stated, and when the underlying presuppositions held by their proponents are revealed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.059
Scholarly communication0.0160.022
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.405
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.030 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueAmerican Society for Aesthetics Graduate E-JournalSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207