Artist's Panel: Art as Inquiry and Artist Collectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During this panel, members of the 4o8 Collective — namely Jillian, Beedell, ClaireDobbie, Meenakashi Ghadial, Jobelle Quijano, Lauren Russo, Rebecca Vangennip,and Ruza Vatres — will unpack the potentialities and issues of working as a collectiveartistic unit. While working as collectives, artists are well poised to share resources,receive and exchange valuable peer feedback, and situate their respective worksalongside artists working in other mediums and disciplines. Conversely, working as acollective also prompts certain challenges such as striking a balance betweenindividual artistic output, and collective artistic output, and determining the oftenblurry lines between individual artistic authorship and collaborative artisticauthorship. To this end, the artists will provide insight to their respective practices,and collective ambitions. In their current exhibition, I still see your ghost dancing inmy room, the 4o8 Collective have each presented individual artworks that, together,amount to a cohesive exhibition exploring their central inquiries as a collective. Keytenants to the 4o8 Collective mandate include: commitment to bridging differencesof both personal subject positions and artistic motivations by way of situating theirartworks in relation to, and in dialogue with each other, experimentation, andexpectations of completion versus openness to failure. The Art as Inquiry & ArtistCollectives panel will delve into the processes of collaboration, co-production, andexperimentation that have fostered the generative artistic trajectory of the 4o8Collective.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.012 |
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".