Bibliographic record
Abstract

 
 
 "This is the Time. And this is the record of the time. This is the Time. And this is the record of the time."
 Laurie Anderson
 In 2014, Stedelijk Museum Bureau Amsterdam took these lyrics of Laurie Anderson’s as a cue for an exhibition by artists investigating ‘to what extent the recording mechanisms and material recordings of our lived times represent and influence our perception of temporality’ (Harutyunyan and Muller, 2016, p17).
 A later publication includes articles from a linked conference in Beirut, Thinking About Time that, like the artworks, ‘shares an endeavor to make time an object of thought without objectifying it.’ (Harutyunyan, 2016, p23)
 It was when considering the texts in this publication that I started to reflect on print as just such a material recording. None of the essays, though wide-ranging, considers printmaking, provoking me to map the arguments onto print for myself, particularly in the light of recent collaborations with artists Alberta Whittle, Rae-Yen Song, and Annalee Davis, all of whom make work directly referencing distances of time and geography.
 
 
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".