Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expositions that consist of presentation of performances have an interest in generating a series of questions on the types of performances that are favourable for occupying space and time. What are they? This article retraces two types, re-enactment and the tableau vivant, and presents their main characteristics. These types of performances are prone to induce modifications in exhibition practices, and through that, raise questions regarding the relationship between research and creation. The cases, Seven Easy Pieces (2005), by Marina Abramovic at the Solomon R. Guggenheim, and An Immaterial Retrospective of the Venice Biennale (2013), by Alexandra Pirici and Manuel Pelmus at the Venice Biennale, serve initially as exemplification, then as epistemic presentation of the two types of performances considered. Through strategies however comparable, Seven Easy Pieces and An Immaterial Retrospective of the Venice Biennale presume diverse purposes. The first work would have as objective, iconization, by relying on the presence of the artist, as well as on the rigour of the document research. The second work offers an example of the critical use of the exposition, by exploiting a research that is not neither put forth nor supported.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".