Spaces & Interfaces - cultures, heritage and intervention at the Elsinore Waterfront
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through 1:1 interventions the Urban Intervention Studio design spatial interactions into urban areas in transformation. We use the theme SPACES & INTERFACES as an open-ended vehicle for conceiving and affecting our spatial surroundings, addressing the relation between body, space and cultural context. Through careful site readings, we explore the physical, social and processual conditions of a place and create interventions that respond to and reinterpret this context. The contextual setting of SPACES & INTERFACES 2018 is the former shipyard and castle Kronborg of Elsinore, a site loaded with historic traces and new cultural functions. The shipyard has transformed into a multifunctional ‘culture yard’ and Kronborg’s world heritage site dominate the horizon. Together the area is termed ‘Culture harbour’ addressing a collective identity as historic landmark and framing present day cultural institutions including our collaborator Catch, a center for education within art & technology based on location. Each of this years seven intervention address specific site situations and extract, enhance and unfold present narratives and sensations by causing friction, balance, overlays, synergies or impulses. Hereby zones are created where different realities can interact (Galloway 2012: vii). The urban interventions become interfaces between experiencing beings and the cultural landscape they are embedded in. Interfacing can her both be understood as how the physical objects ”affords” (Gibson, 1979: 127) , attract and position a person at a particular spot at the site creating a scaled relation to the environment and as how the installation narrates the cultural layers of the context. The studio thus asks how the ongoing site transformations and potentials of the cultural layers can be experienced and communicated through urban interventions promoting new dynamic relations and interactions between visitors and site. An interface can connect phenomena and experiences and provide an embodied access to new exchanges in and with the environment. In each project, the installation as interactive artistic work aims at reframing the selected setting, taking “the situation as its ‘object’” (Massumi 2008:13). In this framework installations are conceived and also reflected on in relation to what they do and how they create interactions and affect. Hence, interfaces are not merely things, but more processual directions and effects that bring with them transformative power (Galloway 2012: vii). In this contribution we will analyze a selection of the interventions and suggest a vocabulary for how the notion of interfacing (in to) a cultural spatial situation through intervening with urban installations can be understood and unfolded and how ‘doing through interfacing’ can produce affect and sensation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".