Necromancy: A Hauntology of Grief, Material Culture, and Research Creation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building out of the methodological frame of autotheory, my thesis work emphasizes personal writing to ground academic theorization in my own lived experiences of grief, study, and arts-making. Ultimately, I argue for the synthesis of these methodological and theoretical frames in order to contribute to the development of research creation methodologies for future research creation scholars by offering up a theoretical grounding for scanner art as a methodology and provide a unifying theoretical frame for hauntology, autotheory, material culture studies, and affect theory under my own critical conceptual metaphor of necromancy. In doing so, I hope to create spaces in which we can consider new ways of grieving that centre interrelationality, to recognize and emphasize our interconnectedness as living and non-living beings, and to do so through an attention to the enchantment of material objects. To carry out this necromantic practice, I emphasize three primary scopes of consideration within academic spaces: thinking spectrally, thinking aprotensively, and thinking interrelationally. Keywords: Remediation; Scanner Art; Photography; Affect; Autotheory; Thing Theory
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".