Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorial Issue 16.4 — Advertising artistry Linda M. Scott Advertising is undoubtedly an aesthetic and cultural object, yet advertisers are rarely recognised as artists. In this issue, we explore the relationship between advertising and the arts from the practitioners perspective. We reprint a delightful chapter from Shirley Polykoff s autobiography Does She...Or Doesn’t She?, in which she details the making of one of her most famous campaigns. The eponymous Miss Clairol tagline, which originates from a hilarious exchange with her mother-in-law, could be said to have single-handedly created the market for hair dying products. Polykoff reflects on how her personal life came to bear on her professional successes, during a time when female advertising executives where few and far between. In Is it Possible To Be a Commercial Artist? Dilemmas Faced by Advertising Industry Employees with Artistic Backgrounds in Poland, Kamil Luczaj interviews Polish creatives on the everyday tensions they face between artistry and commerce. He hereby continues to document an already rich history of artist advertisers, but shines a light on the Polish context. It is clear that the artist identity is difficult to uphold in commercial contexts, and a reconciliation seems unlikely. Michael L. Ross delves deeply into these precarious tensions and dual identities in his book Designing Fictions: Literature Confronts Advertising (McGill-Queens University Press, 2015), which Astrid Van den Bossche reviews for this issue. Ross documents a history of literary renditions of advertising, in which each tale varies in its celebration or condemnation of the realities of the promotional world. Copyright © 2016 The Advertising Educational Foundation, Inc.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.092 |
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".