Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay was written as a catalogue essay to accompany Antony Gormley's exhibition Expansion Field at the Zentrum Paul Klee in Switzerland in 2014 (published by Zentrum Paul Klee and Hatje Cantz). The question of how we speak about artworks connects to the question of how they speak to us: how can a thing—a hunk of inert, inanimate matter—make a claim on us, when does a mute object begin to call upon us, how does it activate our senses and feelings, and why does it provoke our sociability in the way it does? Why does a mute object make us want to talk so much, and how can a lifeless object induce the feeling that we ourselves are somehow more alive for being in its vicinity? Comay's essay connects these questions with an investigation of the basic ontology and logic of Gormley's sculpture: the question of imprint and reprint, where Gormley captures a singular pocket of lived time and space in a receptive medium which forms an infinitely repeatable mould.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".