Legibility in the liminal: challenging the symbolic order, an exhibition of drawing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Amidst the 'Glossary of Commonly Misused Words' in the Writers Digest Grammar Desk Reference, the adverb hopefully is demonstrated in its proper usage with a fortune cookie message that reads: 'It is sometimes better to travel hopefully than to arrive'. (Lutz, 332) This paper takes its character from a similar elaboration from within its purpose. In the most simple way, that purpose is to formulate a critical explanation of the studio works as surveyed and documented. As explication, it imbues its meaning as a manner of traveling hopefully upon the arrival of the action of the project. This might seem simple enough but in order to contextualize both the studio works and the explication the reader will be required to play the double game of both conceptually traveling and perceptually arriving. Though it may seem arbitrary, there is no other way any higher possibility of agreement between text and object could be arranged. To argue on behalf of the studio works would prioritize perceptual arrival over the viewer's experience and to realize art about theories is easily a misuse of the word hopeful"--From the introduction, page 3.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".