Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 20 minute 16mm film which explores the materiality of film and the body. ‘Blind Light’ is a film exploring the materiality of film and the body. The film experiments with light and narration, bringing voice to\n\nour relationship with light, film and spectatorship. It is an example of Pucill’s longstanding – and ongoing - engagement with the\n\nrelationship between the subjective, the autobiographic, and the form, process and materiality of the medium of film.\n\nIt is filmed in the artist’s London loft studio. From within this space Pucill produces images by controlling the light she allows into\n\nthe frame. She lifts the blinds or pulls them shut, applies filters to the lens or removes them, opens wide the aperture or closes\n\nit. Each performance, each action threatens the image as it shifts in and out of ‘proper’ exposure until it disappears completely.\n\nThe camera throughout is set to face a window, focusing either on it or on the sky. The artist narrates her camera operation\n\nwhile referencing a state of being, or describing what it is like to see what she and the viewer are seeing. ‘I can’t look’, she says\n\n‘the clouds are coming in’, ‘there’s been no rain for weeks’, ‘the eye burns, swells, looses focus and disappears in a stream’.\n\nBlind Light is a single screen film for cinema and gallery, shown from a projector or DVD.\n\nFunded by AHRC (£20,000) and ACE (£5000). It is distributed by Lux, BFI, and distributors in Paris, Toronto and USA.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.274 | 0.098 |
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".