Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of conjoined artistic- and phenomenological research practice is explored through two realizations of a drawing-based practice, complemented with a language-based practice that includes transcriptions of a spoken monologue while and about drawing. Through adapting the sense that the monologue’s addressee is an apparently other person, and narrating this situation, the author expresses through the article that the experiential process of drawing is automatically phenomenological. In turn, the article is a presentation of how phenomenological reflection is implicit in the practice. The artist- referenced in the article is termed the artist-author, declared as such to the reader, and is thereafter suggested as split into an apparently more reflexively inclined artist and a more reflectively inclined author/interlocutor. The hypothesis that both artistic- and phenomenological research can manifest as a single practice is embedded in the article’s manner of presentation, the reader of which is almost in the same interlocutory position as the author-, of the artist-author, in being able to notice this. The article’s actual author, however, refers to himself as a homunculus, in effect the hyphen of artist-author, that enables him to detach sufficiently from what can be read and seen to format the article in such terms as enable the reader to critically reflect on its hypothesis. The role of the camera itself, considered as a metaphor for interaction between the reflexive event and its subsequent language-based reflection, is also acknowledged, especially in the context of the artist-’s referencing in the drawing and in his speech how the camera both aids and obfuscates the process, and linking this to theory. The transcript conveys spoken enunciation, especially through its grammatically formatted disfluency and extended pauses, and the author’s personal declaration and observation of himself – reminding the reader that the article’s content is after all about its narrator – is italicized.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".