MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889386662 · doi:10.7202/1049951ar

Thinking Intermediality in Mexico through Artistic Input

2018· article· en· W2889386662 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susana González Aktories, María Andrea Giovine Yáñez

Bibliographic record

VenueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotographic and Visual Arts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)DisciplineArtAestheticsSociologyVisual artsArt historySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By highlighting certain paradigmatic moments and protagonists in Mexican contemporary art that reach back to the second half of the last century and continue until today, this article aims to show the undeniable “intermedial turn” that has become foundational not only for understanding current artistic movements in Mexico, but also for Mexican academia, where critics have only gradually started to recognize how an intermedial perspective may help them understand and analyze artistic proposals that can no longer be discussed from a strictly mono-disciplinary standpoint. Contributions by emblematic artists such as Mathias Goeritz, Felipe Ehrenberg, and Ulises Carrión, who have used words, images, and sound elements to broaden artistic boundaries in new and surprising ways, have been echoed and problematized in novel forms by contemporary visual artists such as Carlos Amorales and Jorge Méndez Blake as well as media artists Rafael Lozano Hemmer and Eugenio Tisselli, some of whom are also valuable interlocutors in matters of intermediality as they continue to critically theorize and sharply reflect on these types of practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniquesSame topicPhotographic and Visual ArtsFrench-language works237,207