Beach Combing - Intuition as Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artistic inquiry is often the basis for creating a work of art, and is done intuitively for artists of all practices. Four artists will share their artistic process from initial inspiration, to research, to artistic creation. How artists approach intuitive art making is not taught in creative institutes, yet remains the backbone of the artistic process. In our own personal practices, we are able to cultivate an idea using inquiry as a vehicle for intuitive creation. Informing our process with research allows us to bring artistic creation into a structured academic setting. Through modes of learning embedded in our institution, intuitive processes have not been taught, they have been discovered and grown on our own. Each artist will speak to how their practice relates to intuitive inquiry process by answering the following: How do you think of artistic creation as a form of intuition? How do you apply your artistic instincts to your medium of choice? What inspired the specific piece of art? Explain your intuitive process used to create the artwork.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".