Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Through a series of projects, this article discusses the role that objects play when art, design, and research intersect. The article is divided into nine sections. After a preamble, I discuss The Pea Project, key to understanding how anomalous objects and odd experiences stimulate reflectiveness, curiosity, creativity, and collaboration. “A Surrealist Encounter” discusses how contexts can be designed to foster reflective and collaborative practice, while Reflective Probes focuses on artifacts designed to stimulate reflective practice. I then discuss activation of receptive modes of engagement through playful triggers and travelling containers. Progetto in Memoriam further explores art, research, and ethnographic practices, and Debris explores simultaneous roles as a designer, artist and ethnographer. While section 8, They Said, looks at how prior learnings were used to deepen my understanding of self, the final section provides conclusive remarks, reiterating the opportunities that exist when art, design, and research intermingle and collide.
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 | 0.031 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.048 | 0.053 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".