MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297770505 · doi:10.47333/modernizm.2022.65

ACCELERATION, MONTAGE, INTERMEDIALITY, AND THE SUBJECT: FUTURISM AND ITS LEGACY

2022· article· en· W4297770505 on OpenAlexaff
John Picchione

Bibliographic record

VenueModernism and Postmodernism Studies Network · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Technology, and Culture
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityAestheticsPosthumanSubject (documents)HumanismPosthumanismTemporalityRepresentation (politics)ArtSociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Futurism adopts new technologies of early twentieth century as central tenets of its aesthetics and worldview. Its technomorphism prefigures cultural theory’s views on the end of the humanist subject and the posthuman. The eternity of the technological flesh is the most far-reaching expression of the Futurist utopia centred on the machine. The Futurists’ objective is to dislodge conventional forms of representation as a way to displace conceptual, cognitive, and behavioural models. Their aim is to revolutionize human identity and subjectivity. They foreshadow Virilio’s concepts of instantaneity and ubiquity in our electronic culture, as well as Bauman’s notion of liquidity as a sign of an ever-changing sense of selfhood. The intensification of sensorial elements and the colonization of the body by the machine recall McLuhan’s theories. Futurism creates fusions and fluid exchanges of the arts and opens them to intermediality, abstraction, performance, and conceptualism. It opens many doors that lead to contemporaneity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.042
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModernism and Postmodernism Studies NetworkSame topicArt, Technology, and CultureFrench-language works237,207