Bibliographic record
Abstract
What does scent have to say concerning the wider networks involved in the lived experiences of sleep? In this essay, I discuss the connection of scent to sleepers and sleepers to scent, not only in the ways that scent may enter our dreams to change them up but also the ways that technologies and methodologies of air, perfume, breath, or exhaust connect us as sleepers to the worlds of botany, synthetics, and other realms of kinship and sense that exist apace from dominant modes of waking or seeing. If sleep and scent have historically been situated as “empty” and “passive,” this essay aims to show how full, vital, and roomy these spaces can be. In this line, I move scent and sleep through an atmospheric methodology of rooms to unravel their wider relationship to night knowledge , an epistemology that seeks alternatives to enlightened knowledges of the day, reaching into secrets and spirits. To do so, my archive involves theory, technology, perfume blogs, artists, dreamers, anthropologists, activists, poets, architects, and botanical, animal, and synthetic elements. Finally, I ask: if sleep had a scent, what would it be?
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".