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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".