MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251997178 · doi:10.14236/ewic/eva2014.65

Data Materiality

2014· article· en· W4251997178 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic workshops in computing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)Raw dataObject (grammar)Meaning (existential)Presentation (obstetrics)Computer scienceAestheticsSublimeEpistemologyArtArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This demonstration develops a series of illustrated case studies based on data-driven artworks developed by the author in the last five years. The artworks all examine the notion of using data as a raw material that can be filtered, manipulated or moulded into representations which suggest an experience of the data, rather than an understanding of it. The preoccupation of these works Isn’t finding meaning or answers in the data, but rather to evoke Impressions in the viewer, to provide alternative perspectives, or perhaps pose new questions. Aesthetic considerations are also derived from the unique nature of each individual dataset, in the same way one would engage with any other type of raw material. The interactive presentation will reflect on and situate these works according to theories, ideas and paradoxes within the current discourse on data art, for instance data as anti-information, anti-sublime, as an immaterial material and or as a found object.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it