Bibliographic record
Abstract
When applied to the Net, art seeks to distribute the conception of interactive systems but also to produce forms of communication and exhibition involving web surfers in the process of the artwork. Websites, home pages, online workshops, list serves, and discussion forums are the frames and territories of new forms of social interaction. On the one hand, Net artists create spaces they inhabit and enrich through the accumulation of data whose goal is to form a more or less “living” archive. On the other hand, these artists use servers, access ports, and addresses to configure a world to be experienced and lived from within, inviting web surfers to temporarily inhabit this space. By joining an aesthetic of computer codes with interface design and archival art, Net art encourages various fragments both competing and coordinated – “programs,” “interfaces,” and “images” – whose status and use I propose to redefine. In other words, through the process of distributed construction of editorial content and the interpretive practices that bring it up to date, this essay examines the systems (frameworks, interfaces) and concrete forms of this digital social interaction (contracts, rituals).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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".