MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384497174 · doi:10.29173/crossings158

Sinofuturism as Speculative Design

2023· article· en· W4384497174 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossings An Undergraduate Arts Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManifestoScholarshipContext (archaeology)Argument (complex analysis)RealismFilm directorAestheticsVisual artsSociologyComputer scienceArtMovie theaterHistoryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The video essay Sinofuturism (1839–2046 AD) by artist Lawrence Lek is difficult to categorize. It is an hour-long film collaging documentaries, news clips, video games, and CGI. Most often exhibited and discussed in a (new) media arts context, it has been described as a pseudo-documentary, a manifesto, a conspiracy theory, science fiction, and “radical realism.” As an architect-by-training, musician, simulation artist, and now filmmaker, Lek himself is equally difficult to pin down. Given the artist’s formal training in a design discipline, it is curious that Sinofuturism has not yet been discussed by scholarship through the lens of design. This essay discusses Sinofuturism (1839–2046 AD) for the first time as a work of speculative design. First, I introduce the work and its creator. Next, I discuss its negative reception, laying the basis for my central argument that analyzing Sinofuturism as a work of speculative design might yield more fruitful insights and discussion. I then explore the emerging field of speculative and critical design (SCD) and its potential to critique and reimagine societal structures. Finally, I discuss the effectiveness of Sinofuturism as a work of speculative design and analyze its vision, whether it be utopian, dystopian, or something else.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossings An Undergraduate Arts JournalSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207