MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3175287430 · doi:10.3406/hista.2011.3384

The Walk Book de Janet Cardiff et Mirjam Schaub : l’écoute par le livre

2011· article· en· W3175287430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Constance Moréteau

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire de l art · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt historyArtPerformance artGermanCriticismVisitor patternActive listeningOrder (exchange)Visual artsSociologyPhilosophyLiteratureCommunicationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Walk Book by Janet Cardiff and Mirjam Schaub : Listening to the Book. The notion of the mediating role of sound is discussed in this analysis of The Walk Book (2006), a hybrid work co-created by German critic Mirjam Schaub and Canadian artist Janet Cardiff. It continues the tradition of audio walks developed by Janet Cardiff beginning in 1997. The visitor, carrying a walkman and sometimes a portable video player, is guided by the artist’s voice along a path that weaves through a town or museum. In order to ensure the comprehension of the reader/spectator, the discourse has been enhanced by careful work on graphic design, the invention of a font, and the insertion of fragments that blur the boundary between text and paratext. This study, in the wake of analyses by Caroline Jones, attempts to contradict the commonly accepted idea of the transparency of sound by combining it with a new field of research : the study of the book in cases where this medium oscillates between its function as a vehicle for criticism and as an artistic experience unto itself.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.234
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire de l art→Same topicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts→French-language works237,207→