Newsletters - Potters Guild of British Columbia 2006 Aug/Sept 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the Lattice Structures event held in Kansas City last fall, a few of the presenters decided that it would be great to get this group of crystalline potters back together again soon.Almost immediately, they began organizing a more intimate working session at Kris Friedrich's state-of-the-art studio in Palm Desert for early May.The notion was to keep the group smaller, and bring Peter Ilsley back from England for another visit to lead a glazing workshop.Kris asked Peter to describe his dream workshop.Peter replied: "I said it would be five days with no more than twenty competent crystalline potters and lots of firing availability plus a kiln for post-firing reduction."As it turned out, Kris granted those wishes and a great deal more.As the planning continued, the event evolved from workshop into Share-Fest with so many of the Lattice Structures presenters and leading crystalline potters signed on to attend.Spending five days glazing and firing alongside Dianne Creber, Ginny Conrow, John Tilton, Jesse Hull, Bill Campbell, Kris and Peter, to name just a few, in a setting like Kris' was an experience we will all long remember!I was thrilled to have been invited.I've not met a fellow more expansive in his generosity than Kris Friedrich -he had treats lined up for us all week starting with an opening night welcome dinner at his lovely home.Back at the studio, we glazed a mountain of pots, firing a 45-cubic-foot gas kiln plus one or two electric kilns and one or two post-fire reductions in the continued on page 8
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.693 | 0.400 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".