<i>In</i>Environments: The convergence and divergence of practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores our audiovisual collaborative outputs and the methods employed to negotiate converging and diverging creative directions in the production of artistic works, in the context of philosophies that influence our thinking-making processes, as well the engagement with new modes of artistic practice. A key feature connecting our collaborations is site-specific field recordings of audio and visual materials. Our work has spanned Canada, the United States and New Zealand, producing a catalogue of works that are intrinsically linked to geographic and everyday phenomena. To support our discussion of the creative process, we critique one recent work,Aspects of Trees(2013, 2015), as a case study that synthesises concerns associated with collaboration, while also illustrating the recent sharp turn in our individual practices. The outcome is a reorientation of our thinking-making procedures, including ideas of subjective experiences of time, place and the agency of human and non-human bodies.
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 | 0.034 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".