Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public Recordings’ projects relay and 300 TAPES engage memory in intriguing ways that become no less interesting when examined from a cognitive perspective. At the surface level, dancers and actors work through a process of recycling either the performance of movements danced in the past ( relay ) or the telling of autobiographical stories of the kind one might circulate among friends ( 300 TAPES ). When looking deeper and listening longer, a more complex treatment of memory begins to layer in. It includes the investment of the performer’s sense of self and questions of how memory is used and changed in a creation process. Through this treatment, Hansen becomes curious about the performers’ responses to archival recordings and situations of isolated repetition in the projects that, in part, render dysfunctional the otherwise ongoing biological process of memory adaptation. In response, the artistic director of Public Recordings, Ame Henderson, offers short sidebar reflections on how she understands and approaches issues of memory in her work. Henderson writes about choreography as remembering, collaboration and task-based generation, and the – to her work – central issue of forgetting. Some of these responses expand and complement Hansen’s cognitive understandings while others suggest that the two voices in this article arrive at shared discoveries through different languages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".