Bibliographic record
Abstract
“It is tantalizing that it is generally impossible to do more than touch the surface and wonder what is underneath it” Dorothy K. Burnham, Cut My Cote, 1973 This paper presents my perspective as an artist who has used ‘close looking’ to draw dress artifacts and reinterpret those drawings into installation works. As such it builds upon Burnham’s legacy of drawing at the Royal Ontario Museum and offers insight into the use of drawing for researching artifacts. The paper is structured around case studies of projects undertaken with dress collections at Kensington Palace (2009-2013), The Bowes Museum (2013-2015), and most recently at Ryerson University Fashion Research Collection (2016). Examining these projects highlights issues around drawing’s capacity to record and communicate the feel, sense or emotional impact of seeing the garments, and the usefulness of drawing as a tool for capturing other sensory information alongside the visual. For instance, drawing is acknowledged as form of touching (Marden 1979, Derrida 1993, Godfrey 1992), able to synthesise multi- sensory experiences as well as information derived from textual research and imagination. In doing so the ‘slow approach to seeing’ is extended to encompass other senses. By considering drawing as an “archaeology of acts of touching” (Godfrey, 1992) or as means for “burrowing beneath the surface” (Berger 1992), a fresh approach to how we might think about getting beneath the surface of a garment, literally and metaphorically, is explored.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".