Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artist Statement:\nWithin our constantly evolving society we often lose touch with the very resources that support us. The levels of burequcracy that remove us from our own food sources blind us to the true nature within which our food is raised and processed. The wretched conditions that these animals are raised in violate the very foundations of ethical treatment and endanger not only them but us as well. The waster from the so-called "factory farms" in which these animals are raised pollutes our waterways and makes its way into our drinking water and crops. "Prosperi-piggy" seeks to examine the ethical and environmental concerns of factory farming in order to shed light on an issue all-to-often ignored by the general public.\nWhile pigs have been depicted as endearing characters in childhood fables and fairy tales, when used in reference to humans, the terms “pig”, “piggy”, and “hog”, tends to imply greed, excess size, or excess consumption. The artist’s placement of the green pig in the center of this work asks the viewer to consider the cost of prosperity.\nThis print is part of a portfolio of artworks created to address the use or misuse of natural resources. Printmaking students and faculty from Concordia College, Minnesota State University Moorhead, Minot State University, North Dakota State University, the University of Manitoba, the University of North Dakota, and Valley City State University took part in the project.\nIncluded in Fables, Insults, and Reverence: The Animals of UND Art Collections Exhibition at the UND Art Collections Gallery in the Empire Arts Center
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".