Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weaving occurs as a central theme in my work, as aesthetic motif as well as conceptual frame. In this article, I discuss the “weaving” that forms my approach to artistic research. As artistic research methodology, weaving enacts the generative and relation qualities of feminist epistemologies, through which I locate my own practice, both topically, as a study of emotion and technology, as well as methodologically and politically as invested in feminist approaches to cultural objects and to the knowledge processes that render them meaningful. Through a discussion of my own artistic practice, I demonstrate how weaving operates as an artistic research process that captures the intertwining of academic and creative practice. I argue that it is through the twinned strength and friction of weaving that artistic research creates epistemological possibilities. Weaving is a concept that holds the possibility of multiple threads and thus implies the strength and frictions of things—different contexts, people or concepts—brought together. Weaving is a generative process, a process that creates new totalities through relation while maintaining the discrete identities of the same threads that bind it together.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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 it