Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using lens- and time-based media — photography and very still moving image — the artistic research practice presented here as ‘phenomenological notes’ aims to bring to the foreground that which might be familiar and is easily overlooked. The presupposed perception of the phenomenon of nature is destabilized and put into question through a process of lens-based durational observation, stretching that which is thought to be known, allowing for the opening of other understandings of nature to emerge. The aim is for these phenomena to be re-seen through closely engaging with what surrounds us and through a process of elongated looking that leads to different modes of seeing and recollecting. The practice itself comprises two distinct, seemingly opposed but interdependent parts of the overall making process: one foregoes the other which is essential for the other one to evolve. These parts are referred to as modes of attention. The first mode of attention demonstrates a more active form of being in a space: the artist actively moves, seeks, and collects. Following on from this, a less active mode is taken up: the artist becomes more receptive, lets the world reveal and unfold itself in front of the lens. The three pieces of work presented — Stille Fragmente, Leaves, Ice melting — give expression to these two modes of attention, and also show how the work has evolved throughout ‘time’. As the work has developed, the process of looking has become more and more distilled, lending more attention to the idea of duration, a concept that might be somewhat contentious to discuss via a medium so clearly associated with clock-time. The decision has been made to trust the agencies of the artifacts themselves produced by this process: not to explain but to frame the phenomenon, to destabilize the pre-established understanding of the phenomenon of nature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.566 | 0.506 |
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".