Microtopia in Counterpoint: Relational Aesthetics and the Echo Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".