Éditorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In France, artistic and cultural projects with incarcerated persons are undergoing fast development and are financed with conviction and commitment by ministries and relevant organizations, with no real capitalization on previous experience or reflexive analysis, and always with underlying doubt regarding their efficacy. This is the social and political problem that the “Evaluation of Cultural Experience during Incarceration” project aims to explore with experimentation by design. This article presents the question founding the research project; its stakes regarding reflexive and collective definition by design of the evaluation and of cultural experience while incarcerated, embodied in The Kiosque, an object promoting reading in detention; as well as the proposed methodology. There are two objectives: not only to contribute to sketching the epistemological borders of design but also to lay the foundations of an evaluation of artistic and cultural projects with incarcerated persons, evading the injunctions of quantitative measurement and thus re-establishing what makes stakeholders value these projects, and the value they hold in improving the habitability of the world.
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.032 |
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".