MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380874676 · doi:10.3138/ctr.137.006

Living the Image

2009· article· en· W4380874676 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dot Tuer, Louise Liliefeldt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicVisual Culture and Art Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationStyle (visual arts)Ask priceVisual artsSignature (topology)ArtImage (mathematics)AestheticsComputer scienceSociologyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dot Tuer: To begin this conversation about your work as a performance artist, I would like to ask about your approach to the art form. Are your performances scripted? Or do you react to the environment around you as you are performing? Is there an iconic performance that has become a signature style for you?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.033

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicVisual Culture and Art TheoryFrench-language works237,207