Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human-companion species relationship is the starting point for the critique explored in Wait. Wait is part of the larger Animal Lover body of work, which is situated within a developing area of artistic practice referred to as "interspecies collaboration." Contemporary cultures for the most part consider animals in terms of consumption: as food source, experimental subject, eco-logical resource, entertainment, etc. Critical to Animal Lover are questions and critiques addressing human relations with non-humans, particularly companion species. These works reconsider the animal as conscious, expressive, and creative, with complex states of being different from, but potentially as rich as, those of humans. In Wait, human and canine communication methodsare brought to bear within an interactive video installation. The piece uses interactive technologies that track the physical presence and movement of visitors to the work, allowing for direct contribution to the creation of meaning. Taking cues from the movements of the visitor, the dog (as imaged in the video) points to the relationship of control. The dog appears to be waiting for direction -- looking directly at the visitor, implying a state of suspended urgency. Visitors are compelled to ask questions about their relationship to the dog. In this way, the piece depicts the complex relationship between humans and companion species who share the domestic space. For the most part, companions such as dogs, cats, and birds are subject to conditions of human dwelling (home) and the systems and codes of power, space, and communication associated with it. Wait was produced in partnership with Banff New Media Institute, The Banff Centre, Banff, Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.390 | 0.154 |
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".