Keystone’s mystical sphere: covert transgressions within a disciplinary regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I argue that the ‘eye-training’ stereoviews of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are full of playful transgressions against the medical regime of ocular discipline in which they were embedded. These views were intended for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes within a project to medicalize and normalize spatial seeing. Read within that framing, they exemplify the influential claims of Jonathan Crary about stereoscopy’s role in the standardization and mechanization of vision, rendering it rational and efficient within an increasingly global system of industrial mass production. But evident within the design of these views is a more complex story. Many of them, visually and conceptually, are direct descendants of early nineteenth-century stereoviews used in rational recreation. These were intended to stimulate critical thinking about how perception and optical deceptions worked and return agency and social power to the observer. Others embody some of the tropes of modernist art of the early twentieth century – mixed-media collage, spatial fragmentation and re-composition, plus a reflexive, ‘meta-pictorial’ logic. Rather than a dull notion of conformity to a standardized spatial regime, these views invite the idea that space is a somewhat arbitrary construction, open to the often witty and creative agency of artist and viewer. They offer a kind of effectivity within modernity that is best understood in class terms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".