Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND 2112 Imagining the Future taps into general anxieties about an uncertain future and concern about the consequences of climate change, revealing how contemporary international artists including Mariko Mori, Roman Signer and Kenji Yanobe and national artists such as Patricia Piccinnini and Sam Leach imagine the world might look in 100 years. CONTRIBUTION Duxbury's inkjet print depicts an Arctic glacier as, according to curator Linda Williams "a kind of tipping point in slow motion". The slow passage of time is exaggerated by the 3 staggered stages of the work. A pink glow, replacing the normal icy blue of glaciers, is a harbinger of global warming, speculating on a future beyond immediate short-term interests. While many of the works in the exhibition were borne out of the imagination, Duxbury, a veteran of remote locations, continues her fascination with humankind's relationship with the environment. Her work evolved from an extended walk in Nunuvut in the Canadian Arctic. By Degrees presents an actual melting/advancing glacier of Baffin Island. It is rendered as an image that merges fact with fiction, impossibility with possibility through photographic editing software and presentation. By Degrees questions how art can contribute to the dialogue about global warming through futuristic envisioning of remote yet significant subjects such as melting glaciers. Williams says the artists she sought extend their visions into the centuries or millenniums ahead, exploring the environmental degradation that is the most significant future concern and the big question of our present time. SIGNIFICANCE The significance of this work is attested to by its inclusion in this forward-looking exhibition that arose from research undertaken in the Globalization and Culture Program at the Global Cities Research Institute at RMIT, that drew attention from architects (ArchitectureAU) and the general public (ABC Radio National Future Tense 15 Dec 2011; The Age 14 Jan 2012).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads 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".