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
Abstract. This study focuses on the relationship between art and cartography. The main objective is to analyze how contemporary art uses maps to criticize borders. Inspired by the arguments raised by the Critical Cartography against the false neutrality of maps, we emphasize the potential of artworks to communicate different insights about how we experience and live the contemporary space. In that sense, art plays an important role not only to discuss the articulation of power and knowledge in cartography, but also to propose other categories of thought. Considering that borders are one of the most relevant visual elements on a map, we propose the following question: how the intersection between art and cartography can improve the critical thinking about borders? By questioning borders, art underlines that physical world is characterized by liminal spaces, not by absolute or strict separations. We briefly analyzed some examples of artworks that deal with political issues regarding this topic. Our findings suggest that art could reveal the impact of imposing borders in a space, whose arbitrary delimitation reflects power relations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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