Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Naked Craft Network (NCN) was a multi-component, international collaborative research project (2014–2017) that investigated topical issues in contemporary craft practice in Scotland and Canada. Through an innovative combination of practice and theoretical reflection, bridging design history and theory, practice-based research and public engagement, the project brought together an international network of practice- based researchers, writers, curators and industry partners. They questioned the value of craft as a practice, an historical phenomenon and a contemporary experience. The main outputs from the project were a cluster of interlinking research events, including residencies, workshops, a public education programme and accompanying symposia. The research was disseminated to the public through a touring exhibition of Canadian and Scottish craft that was accompanied by a catalogue with commissioned essays. Led by craft historian and theorist Juliette MacDonald and Dr Sandra Alfoldy, Nova Scotia College of Art & Design, Canada, NCN was the first major craft partnership between Scotland and Canada and involved four academics, 23 professional craftspeople, five curators, and three research assistants. The Make workshop and symposia brought together individual makers from local craft communities, and researchers from academic institutions from Canada and Scotland. 20 June – 6 September 2015 Art Gallery of Burlington, Burlington, Canada. 26 September – 28 November 2015 Centre Materia, Quebec City, Canada. 14 January – 10 April 2016 Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada. April – May 2016 Thurso Gallery and Iona Gallery, Kingussie, Scotland. Both galleries at once with one month in each, but it was counted as one exhibition venue. June – August 2016 Barony Centre Craft Town, West Kilbride, Scotland. October 2016 – February 2017 Peebles Art Gallery, Peebles, Scotland. April – June 2017 An Lanntair, Stornaway, Orkney, Scotland. The legacy of the research lies in the way it has opened up channels of communication between the two communities to establish a space for reflecting upon and re-evaluating the traditional roles of craft practice for the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.352 | 0.113 |
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".