MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980429958 · doi:10.21814/diacritica.473

A defense of artistic research

2019· article· en· W2980429958 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro Alegría

Bibliographic record

VenueDiacrítica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExemplificationValue (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)AestheticsEpistemologyAesthetic valueSociologyArtComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I will try to defend, first, that there is a sense in which research is not only possible but desirable in art. Second, that there is a minimal set of written/physical components that are the minimal conditions for something to be considered research for art (in Frayling’s sense). Third, that the epistemic value of the results is derived from the concept of exemplification as a retriever of value in a dense universe of artistic possibilities. And finally, that artistic research is a toolfor empowering the artist if it is done within a set of parameters that gives it some epistemic value.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.090
Scholarly communication0.0200.018
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiacríticaSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207