MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889163687 · doi:10.25439/rmt.27350070

Vainamoinen's Ghost: The Biometric Sublime

2024· other· en· W6889163687 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimeArchitecturePoetryBiometricsPropositionNatural landscapeRepresentation (politics)Landscape design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The essay 'Vainamoinen's Ghost: The Biometric Sublime,' accompanied by 3 illustrative figures, presents a creative proposition for the entranceway to Montreal through the Nordic epic poem 'The Kalevala.' It was selected for publication in Kerb Journal of Landscape Architecture. CONTRIBUTION: This creative work responds to the thematic of issue 19: 'Paradigms of Nature: Post Natural Futures.' In 'resisting the representation of Montreal's post-industrial freeway spaces as a series of perceptual voids,' as well as resisting the 'urge to fill these vacant lands with anthropogenic activity,' the designers instead propose to sow these voids arboreally, to allow the biometric potential within to emerge. 'Sacred bees - 'Mehiläinen'- both draw on this bioactivity and draw it out, offering a haunting supplement to the sowing.' This poetic rendering of a sublime Nordic experience - through text and image - presents a novel approach to conceptualising the contemporary landscape. This proposal reinforces what David Gissen calls 'the architectural reconstruction of nature,' specifically as a way of bringing nature back into the view and experience of the city. SIGNIFICANCE: The significance of this work is evidenced by its inclusion in the Kerb Journal of Landscape Architecture - an annual cross-disciplinary design publication produced by the RMIT University School of Architecture and Design (ISSN: 1324-8049). It is a design journal focused on contemporary landscape architecture issues from an international and national perspective. This issue was reviewed in ArchDaily (Pohl, October 2011) and Landscape Architecture Australia (Young, June 2012).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.021
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library)French-language works237,207