Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our proposed project is a curated digital catalogue of objects which we have collected for over 20 years. Including over 400 different objects, each has been carefully photographed on all of its sides. These recorded surfaces are reconfigured digitally as if the object has been flayed and flattened, enabling the object to be printed two dimensionally. Once printed and cut out, the surfaces can be folded to create a three dimensional, realistic facsimile of the original. While the mimic lacks the actual history of the original, the duplicated aging and wear patterns persuade the viewer otherwise. Can these imposters truly conjure up the ghosts associated with the original? Is the copied souvenir capable of fulfilling the role of a real souvenir? Objects that were collected on trips, childhood favorites, marked our teenage years, or were given to us by our now-deceased grandparents, appear to provide us with a connection to our past. However, in reality they are as material bound as their paper twins. We have shown the entire collection of printed duplicates as an ephemeral installation in the form of a life-sized thrift store. Printed on translucent acetate, the objects now transformed into lanterns and were given away during a community light festival event. Dispersing the collection in this way is a play on gift giving, allowing the piece to diffuse and the objects to begin new histories. [See video link for installation: https://vimeo.com/341254142] We want to continue this idea of dispersal by posting a collection of the objects to be available for online printing, for anyone to produce themselves. Depending on space available, this collection could be a handful of curated images, or a more extensive selection. Each object would be accompanied by a small text outlining where and when the original objects was found. We have selected a few of these as examples of what the project would look like; these are on the following pages (at a lower resolution than what is possible).
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.041 |
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".