Another Image of Existence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2015/2016, Denise Ferreira da Silva and Valentina Desideri have been engaging in a joint practice of so-called Poethical Readings, a device that engages the poetic and the ethical at the limits of the epistemology and ontology of the modern Subject. In this interview, Ferreira da Silva and Desideri provide insight into the singular and theatrical dynamics of Poetical Readings, as well as The Sensing Salon, a format for the collective exercise of Poethical Readings. They consider their practice with respect to the issue of power and the image of existence that undergirds modern politics, suggesting that Poethical Readings partake in the construction of a different image of existence no longer founded on the violent operations of the Subject. Having taken place in the autumn of 2020, that is, in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the interview is framed by and addresses these issues through the discussion of the social ramifications of the corona crisis.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".