MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801976050

A behaviour index for complex artworks: A conceptual tool for contemporary art conservation

2017· article· en· W2801976050 on OpenAlex
S. Stigter

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit van AmsterdamYork UniversityUniversity of the Arts London
KeywordsIndex (typography)AccountabilityComputer scienceDigital artPresentation (obstetrics)Variable (mathematics)Data collectionVisual artsArtSociologyMathematicsSocial scienceWorld Wide WebArt historyPerformance artPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a model that visualises the effect of decision making in the conservation and presentation of complex artworks: a behaviour index. It is a conceptual tool that is especially useful when managing unconventional artworks that are variable in nature. Inspired by the variable media approach, the concept of an artwork’s ‘behaviour’ is adopted to analyse an artwork’s successive manifestations over time. This reveals the impact of museum practice and the role of the people who conserve, install or perform the work. The idea is to implement the concept of a behaviour index as an interactive digital tool in museum collection management systems. This not only provides insight into an artwork’s biography, but also enforces accountability from those having to make decisions about the artwork’s appearance every time it is put on display.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it