Chapitre 3. Horizontal Exchange, Relations, and Resistance in Bioart and Practice-based Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioart sits at the intersection of two relatively elite fields of knowledge specialization and production: Biotechnology and Art. These specializations occupy different strata of the academic hierarchy, requiring credentials and disciplinary rigour that, historically, have tended to validate delineated specificities instead of similarities in research; in turn, these areas of expertise privilege credentialed mastery over other ways of knowing. With its overlap of the arts and the sciences, how might bioart function to flatten existing hierarchies and foster more horizontally collaborative methods towards a shared and critical understanding of bioethics? This paper builds on the notion of horizontal collaboration theorized by Couture et al. (2017), critically attending to the ruptures and resistances (real, perceived, and constructed) that occur when working transversally within verticalized institutions. Combining theoretical interventions with practice-based case studies that deconstruct spaces of bio-artistic inquiry - from the lab or studio to kitchens, classrooms, and galleries - this paper aims to build 'good' relations according to Joanna Zylinska's definition of a body compounding it's relation to another, thereby increasing the power of both.
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.
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 | 0.049 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it