Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the entry of film/video into the art gallery has generated interest in earlier periods of artists' cinema, specifically the material/formal ideas of 1970s ‘expanded cinema' (Live in Your Head, Whitechapel 2000) and has contributed to a renewal of critical production. \n \nThis ‘film performance' stretches the boundaries of film in three ways: production, authorship, means of exhibition. \n \nProduction. This work is possibly unique in exploring relationships between letterforms and output as optical sounds. Made without a camera, all images and sounds in the film derive from computer-generated letterforms copied photographically onto 16mm film. The work asks: what is the character of sound made by these physical shapes of letters (e.g. ‘O' is warm, ‘E' is hard) and how can they be composed as a film artwork? \n \nAuthorship. The work is an equal collaboration with artist Lynn Loo (UEA). Improvising musicians are at times co-opted to play live during its performances (Washington and Aufermann London 2005; Wilkinson Leeds 2006; Besson Paris 2006; Alan Montreal 2006). The musicians are asked to play within the implied space between the optical noises made by the letters and our knowledge of them as uttered sounds. \n \nExhibition. The work is radical in its means of exhibition, using six 16mm projectors as instruments while their soundtracks interact with the live musicians. The work tests whether film projection can be brought closer to the realm of improvised music. \n \nIn its various aspects the work develops ideas of optical sound (McLaren 1950s, Sherwin's own optical sound films of the 1970s - see DVD); of ‘expanded cinema' exhibition (ICA 1976, Dortmund 2004) and of image / sound collaboration (Metamkine 2005-7, Reble/Koner 2004-6). \n \nSuccess of the work is demonstrated using the same criteria as output one. \n \nA combined DVD/book ‘Guy Sherwin - Optical Sound Films' is in production.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.041 |
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".