<i>bingenTV</i> and the Hildegard von Bingen Society for Gardening Companions: A Conversation Between Sophie Seita, Naomi Woo and Declan Wiffen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This interview with Sophie Seita and Naomi Woo explores bingenTV, an exhibition at Mimosa House (London) in the Winter of 2023, and The Hildegard von Bingen Society for Gardening Companions, a queer-feminist, and ecologically engaged creative project. The conversation traces the Society’s origins, fictional and real, and its multimedia performances, workshops, and installations – including bingenTV, a satirical 1980s queer gardening talk show. Seita and Woo reflect on performance, rituals, archival fabulation, queer ecologies, and reparative ecological practices, drawing from a range of creative practitioners, such as Hildegard von Bingen, Vita Sackville-West, Pauline Oliveros and Alison Knowles, Mary Delany and others. The discussion explores the ambivalences of queer historical recovery, complicity, and exclusion – foregrounding gossip, humour, and embodied performance as valid modes of knowledge. Focusing on ways of cultivating community across human and more-than-human boundaries, the conversation navigates the tensions between healing and dissonance, critique and care, fiction and fact.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".