A Manifesto Has Come to Light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"From July to August 2015, Dr. Jeanne Randolph, Jacob Wren, Bodgan Cheta, Jillian Fleck, and JD Mersault came together to participate in TNG’s thematic group residency to develop a new work that explored the convergence between art making and art writing. This project addressed questions such as, ‘Can writing about art be art?’ and ‘Does art criticism have to exist as reviews, essays, etc.?’ \n \nThe artists decided that the outcome of the residency would be a novel called a manifesto has come to light… and that the work would be widely distributed at no cost. Cheta, Fleck, and Mersault each created content for their own episode, a broadsheet-style publication that also included a continuous line of dialogue between Randolph and Wren that contextualized the project. 3000 copies of each episode were distributed throughout Calgary, Winnipeg (MB), Montreal (QC), and Dundee (SCT) in three phases – one at the end of February, March, and April in 2016." -- Publisher's website.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
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".