Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how the intensification of research within contemporary artistic practice plays out in the space of the library and its implications for the services and resources librarians provide to patrons who are artists. The Ontario Chapter of the Art Libraries Society of North America brought together three art information professionals and three art educators/artists in a panel discussion titled “Research Intersections within Practice: Artists and Librarians” to discuss different approaches to research and information gathering by artists during the process of art production, as well as the role that art information professionals can play as facilitators of the creative process. Written by one of the planners and curators of the event, the article reinvestigates the findings and themes of the panel discussion and speculates on what the future may hold for art production which faces massive technological upheavals in the way of information preservation, access, and processing.
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 | 0.132 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.198 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.054 | 0.055 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".