MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961303047 · doi:10.35937/19170701

Because we play: Riffing on rhizomes, attribution and voice in duoethnographic assemblage

2014· article· en· W2961303047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard Wainwright, S. Stevents

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Machinic Arts-Based Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssemblage (archaeology)LyricsMeaning (existential)NarrativeAttributionHistorySociologyLinguisticsLiteraturePsychologyArtEpistemologyPhilosophyArchaeologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What fractured discourses they are. Our duoethnography may be seen more appropriately as collective assemblage? Collaborative assemblage? Assemblage as remix? Can the layering of the sound of Thunderstruck against the lyrics of Eminem be understood outside a discussion of fracture and the instability of meaning? When Eminem goes back and forth from such personas as Slim Shady to M&M to Marshall Mathers, whose voice prevails? How is it that his homophobic rantings in one personae can be contrasted with that of another on stage with Elton John? Similar fractures in narratives? How do they play out in duoethnography? This is more than just adhering to some constructivist understanding of epistemology

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 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)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
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 integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Machinic Arts-Based ResearchSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207