From a Work to an "Open" Work: Research Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of this study is the concept of "open" work, proposed by U. Eco. Based on the ideas of U. Eco, the authors interpret the "open" work in several aspects: compositional, semantic, and compositional-semantic. Compositional openness emerges in aleatoric works. The tendencies to openness are found in compositions written with the use of "non-deterministic" notation. Works that are "open" in the semantic sense have encoded meanings, the decoding of which requires the involvement of contextual meanings. Compositional-semantic openness emerges in Net Art. Cognition of the specifics of "open" works required a study of the history of the traditional "closed" work, it's becoming and evolution in a historical perspective. The concept of "work" is investigated in conjunction with the concepts of "authorship", "creativity", "musical text", "performance", "perception", etc. It was demonstrated that the meaning of these concepts substantially changes in the context of dynamic history and culture. In modern culture, these concepts have lost their usual shape and have substantially transformed due to rapid development of computer technology and the Internet.
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 | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".