MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191853874 · doi:10.25038/am.v0i24.423

Processual Creativity and Partial Incorporations

2021· article· en· W3191853874 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Gil

Bibliographic record

VenueAM Journal of Art and Media Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityEpistemologyCreativityAestheticsDeleuze and GuattariSociologyMateriality (auditing)PhilosophyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brian Massumi and Félix Guattari conceptualize the creative processual force of life that shapes the passages from the potential to the actual dimensions of experience. Throughout these passages, bodies, environments and their relational modes of felt perception crystallize into form. What the conceptual vocabulary of Massumi and Guattari offers is a tool box to register the processual creative forces that are predetermined towards a coming into shape of a body-environment (subjectivity), as well as to take into account the forces deflecting from capture. The relevancy of their concepts is in that they index the more-than-human operations of the forces that shape the production of subjectivity: their concepts express the forces that by being potential and more-than concrete are beyond registering of individual human consciousness. Considering that subjectivity is produced through the potential ingression of partial incorporations – brewing of body-time-spaces – this paper is a proposition to think-feel the entanglements of process philosophy and somatic practices. Moreover, having in mind that processual creativity is a force distributed beyond the human, it needs to be as well thought as an autonomous doing ‘of’ the world. Therefore, the concepts offered by Massumi and Guattari overspill the disciplinary containment of the art disciplines and become an ethico-aesthetic paradigm ‘of’ the world, one in which the resistance to the capture of the production of subjectivity goes hand in hand with the invention of ways to think-feel how bodies and environments become. Article received: April 25, 2020; Article accepted: July 1, 2020; Published online: April 15, 2021; Original scholarly paper

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.046
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAM Journal of Art and Media StudiesSame topicPhilosophical and Theoretical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207