Conspiracy: Misconceptions and Empathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My master’s research focuses on contemporary conspiracy culture and how artists interpret conspiratorial narratives. As outlined in the MET’s 2018 exhibition Everything is Connected: Art and Conspiracy, there are “two interwoven camps.” The first are artists who use the imagery of the “disaffected” to highlight the danger of this manner of thinking, and expose “uncomfortable truths.” The second group are those who take a pseudo-journalistic approach to their art. These artists use public and leaked records to form larger narratives of high-power deception. Another sizable group of these journalistic artists are those who use their work to present proof of their conspiratorial narratives. Additionally, my research has led me to exploring how to engage in empathetic conversations with those convinced of conspiracy. The final result of my research was a workshop at which I discussed my research and led those in the room through guided discussions.
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 | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".