Keepers of the Bio Art Laboratory: Mangling Methods and Curating Critically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se concentre sur la pratique en plein essor du bio-art, afin d’envisager les possibilités de faire du commissariat au sein de deux sphères de productions culturelles en apparence disparates, celles du laboratoire scientifique et du musée. Dans une analyse des oeuvres du Tissue Culture & Art Project (TC&A), de Kathy High et de Jennifer Willet, il décortique les méthodes commissariales qui s’attachent à relocaliser le laboratoire dans le musée et vice-versa. En explorant ce phénomène de transversalité à travers les figures du « mangle » et du « biotheatre », le texte fait valoir que les pratiques du bio-art font intrinsèquement appel à des stratégies créatrices et commissariales qui ébranlent la perception de stérile objectivité des laboratoires et qui permettent de critiquer les paradigmes de la culture scientifique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".