Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobilities scholars have recently described the ways that artists address and contribute to the development of mobile and locative technologies, offering different perspectives on mobility. This paper proposes a role for art practice not only alongside the sociology of mobilities, but as methodological innovation within the discipline and asks what productive synergies can be produced by working between art and sociology. In the context of my practice as an artist I briefly describe two projects: the #Patchworks project that took place within Catalyst, an interdisciplinary research project that brings together academics from social science, computing, design, art and management science to carry out research on citizen-led digital social innovation at Lancaster University, and a series of Skype meetings and workshops between the mobile media centre in Montreal and the Mobilities lab in Lancaster. The paper outlines the benefits and problems of using creative method to engaging participants, composition as a method of analyzing data, and art work as a form of publication.
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 | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".