Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is it possible to bend a spoon with the mind alone?Do the light produced by the Moon and a television set have anything in common?Can art history take the form of a crumpled heap?Although these three questions are seemingly unconnected, they are in fact based on an opposition between two types of elements, one of which is related to materiality and the other to evanescence and abstraction.Far from simply reiterating this stale binarity, recent publications give us the chance to analyse the connections between these categories, through the prism of artefacts from material culture, art history and contemporary art.In the wake of theories that suggest moving "beyond nature and culture", 1 modes of interdependence are explored: alliances, "companioning", 2 cooperation, negotiations and torsions between materials and ideas, techniques and narratives, bodies and ideologies.Published between 2017 and 2019 in France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, six publications provide us with information on these new forms of materialism.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.007 |
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".