Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical Ethics presents Trinity Square Video's 2016 themed commissions, which were produced over a threemonth residency at the centre.Selected from an open call for submissions, these artists investigate what media art can offer ethical philosophy and dialogues.These new projects address the idea of critical ethics as a nuanced investigation into relational interactions between individuals, groups, technologies, environments and ideas.They embrace the complicated ethical entanglements in which we are always already embedded, exploring ethics as a site of negotiation rather than an execution of moral decrees.Critical Ethics pushes and reconfigures our understandings of ethics in the context of a highly mediated and mediatized world.What might a new philosophy of ethics seek to describe or understand in this contemporary context?Reading and Discussion Group Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 7 PM Considering the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action alongside the policy demands of the Movement for Black Lives.Pre-reading is required.Please visit www.trinitysquarevideo.com/critical-ethics for more information.Artist's talk with jes sachse Saturday,
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 | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
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".