Archives, Art, and the Performativity of Practice
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
Abstract This chapter considers how performative (rules-driven) methodologies and modalities are common to both archival and artistic practices, and it deliberates the relationship between work and art that follows from this. Although techniques of recordkeeping and documentation are routine inside the archive, they may appear radical when brought into art practice. This radicalization follows the Duchampian model of the ‘readymade’: the shift from a familiar to an unfamiliar context. Although the debate here lies outside conventional archive theory and art criticism, it is pertinent to both archives and art. Additionally, whilst archival thinking has informed the art practices discussed here (both text—and image-based), it is hoped that consideration of such practices may be thought provoking and constructive when taken back into the archive. The themes of performativity, labour, media archaeology, material culture, and cultural theory addressed here are as critical to archival thinking as they are to art.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it