Bibliographic record
Abstract
A ‘counter-discourse’ of speculative approaches to art history Situated at the interface of philosophy, aesthetics and art history, this collection brings together a series of creative responses to the recent speculative turn in Continental philosophy. It gives you both a genealogy of speculative art history and a provocatively experimental counter-discourse of new speculative art histories. The contributors include philosophers, art historians, architects and art practitioners who go beyond the mere complementarity of philosophy and art history. They are generous with the types of art they examine, including architecture, cinema, dance and new media, and the philosophical trajectories they engage with. Published in association with Witte de With Center for Contemporary Art, Rotterdam Contributors Armen Avanessian , Free University Berlin, Germany. Erik Bordeleau , Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Adi Efal , University of Cologne, Germany. Francis Halsall , National College of Art and Design, Dublin, Ireland Fleur Courtois-l'Heureux , National Fund for Scientific Research, ULB and INSAS, Belgium. Bram Ieven , Leiden University, Netherlands. Vlad Ionescu , University of Hasselt, Belgium. Sarah Kolb , University of Art and Design in Linz and Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, Austria. Bertrand Prévost , University of Bordeaux, France. Andrej Radman , TU Delft, Netherlands. Elisabeth von Samsonow , Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna, Austria. Lars Spuybroek , Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. Kerstin Thomas , Johannes Gutenberg-University in Mainz, Germany. Sjoerd van Tuinen , Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands. Kamini Vellodi , Kingston University, London, UK.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".