A Narrative Approach to Authorship: The Work of Evi Tampold from Her Mother/Publisher’s (and Her Own) Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative authorship in graphic medicine is examinable from a number of perspectives. One neglected approach is to look for developments in how an individual artist collaborates over the course of illustrating different graphic medicine novels. In the first, the artist collaborated with her younger self in trying to regain memories of an until then forgotten past. In the second, she worked closely with the writer to try to determine exactly what the author intended, adding a new dimension to the piece unavailable without the illustrations. In the third still to be completed work, her illustrations are based on collaboration with only the text and a few photographs, lacking direct contact with the author. How this artist’s three methods of collaboration have defined her collaborative authorship will be the focus. What is unique is this study will be undertaken from the stand point of the illustrator’s publisher, who is also her mother.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it