MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384161301 · doi:10.7202/1100562ar

Transnational Activism in the Post‑Digital Networks of the Bound Art Book Fair and the Hackney Comic + Zine Fair

2023· article· en· W4384161301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Louisa Preston

Bibliographic record

VenueMémoires du livre · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComicsSociologyContext (archaeology)Media studiesPublishingEmpowermentOptimal distinctiveness theoryLawPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author’s experiences of the Hackney Comic + Zine Fair (HCZF) and the Manchester‑based Bound Art Book Fair (BABF) are the point of departure for this article. The discussion focuses on the distinctiveness of these spaces of dissemination and the positioning of the agents involved. This article shows how virtual engagement at each fair became entangled with situated experiences and printed publications. The article also considers the significance of an autoethnographic approach within the post‑digital context, and its relationship to pursuing scholarly activism within twenty‑first‑century book studies. HCZF and BABF operate in post‑digital networks of artist‑ and self‑publishing; this positionality allows them to advocate for change and social justice. Transnational activism is evidenced through the accessibility, resources, and community empowerment that these fairs offer and generate for creative publishing practices. HCZF and BABF evidence resistance to major book fair networks, e.g., in Frankfurt, and London, whilst simultaneously influencing and infiltrating those very networks.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.023
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMémoires du livreSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207