Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to propose an alternative notion of the interface. While the existing notions of the interface suffice, there is a need for understanding the interface as an ecology, rather than as an object or technology. Scholars such as Branden Hookway, Alex Galloway, Nanna Verhoeff, and Heidi Rae Cooley understand the interface as "a relationship," "processes," "doing," and "habits," respectively. However, in consideration of the new and emerging social processes and transformations engendered by interfaces as platforms by which we understand and relate with the world in more specific ways, I argue that a notion of the interface as an ecology would enrich the discussion and provide an ecological boundary ‘object’ for thinking across disciplines. I examined the interface through etymological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, and artistic standpoints, as well as exploring the term's affective, material, and infrastructural dimensions. I conclude that an ecological notion of the interface would produce a more nuanced and performative understanding of the term and shift our focus away from the material form of interfaces, to the actions, intensities, and aesthetics of the interface. Ecology is critical to how we understand interfaces as it concerns the relationships between organisms and their environments, including the relationships between artists and their expressive media and installations, and the relationships between users and their interface platforms. The ecological notion of the interface refers to how we live in the networked, hypermediated space, relate with our technologies, and engage in artistic practices in all forms of interfaces.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".