Earthly Delights: Thinking Through Drawing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthly Delights: Thinking Through Drawing encourages human individuals to explore natural environments in a new light by transforming the spaces in which we encounter them, namely by bringing the exterior world of nature into interior spaces. In doing so, I work to encourage a reworking of our current understanding of what it means to experience nature and what it means for something to be natural. Beginning with an initial understanding of the natural environment as that which operates within the context of the outdoors, this text and accompanying artwork work to make sense of the different ways through which people remain part of rather than separate from the natural world, one that often goes overlooked. Natural processes, including flow, growth, erosion, and decay of plants and other organic matter, are taken into consideration in this process. Considering our presence in the time of the Anthropocene, I propose an imaginable call to action through the method of care. The resulting created speculative experience invites participants to come to their understanding about personal relationships with, and feelings towards, nature-based ecologies. Traditional methods of drawing are engaged in this body of work to speculate on a contemporary conceptualization of nature and how it might exist to human and more-than-human eyes. The works of art explore a delight in seeking connections to nature. Acknowledging such relationships strives to challenge thoughts about our place as humans existing as part of environmental spaces, demonstrating the potential for nature and people to exist as equals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".