MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317141883 · doi:10.4000/cadernosaa.1060

Microtopia in Counterpoint: Relational Aesthetics and the Echo Project

2016· article· en· W2317141883 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandrine Boudreault‐Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueCadernos de arte e antropologia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterpointEthnographyAestheticsMusicalField (mathematics)Echo (communications protocol)SociologySpace (punctuation)IllusionMeaning (existential)Point (geometry)Visual artsArtEpistemologyComputer scienceLinguisticsPsychologyAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article takes as its starting point the ethnographic experience of producing and editing a series of video clips that virtually unite musicians who have never met and who live in different places; it engages with the experience of producing an illusion, a virtual encounter, and a relational piece. The Echo project and its associated installation, “Echo ~ the first tie”, were created with the aim of exploring the concept of “microtopias in the present” as developed by Nicolas Bourriaud (2001). In creating “microtopias”, or spaces of exchanges and conviviality, the project questions the nature of the anthropologist’s involvement in the field as well as her relationship with the people she works with. This article discusses the nature of the relations provoked by an anthropologist during the production of a project that aimed to create a virtual space of encounter. More specifically, in this case, it looks at the meaning of an improvised musical performance in counterpoint. Finally, this article critically examines the Echo project in order to deeply reflect on what could constitute a relational aesthetics-based audio-visual ethnography.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCadernos de arte e antropologiaSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207