Changes at the lab bench: \ninterdisciplinary art and life’s new design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis I examine contemporary interdisciplinary theory and practice in art, \ndesign, citizen science and synthetic biology. I explain the differences between three main \nknowledge distinctions of synthetic biology, and identify prominent artists, designers, and \ncitizen scientists who are creating new modes of labour therein. I locate this research in \nIsabelle Stengers’ notion of the Ecology of Practices, which I connect to my own art practice \nas a DIY textile crafter. In the DIY Body Project installation, which took place at the Ontario \nScience Centre and online at diybody.org, a space is created for the public to generate its own \nevolving narrative of what a synthetic body can mean, look like and function as. The \nexhibition does this without promoting a specific rhetoric of the body as human, the synthetic \nas machine, or the biological as computable as is often seen in biotechnology discourse.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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".