Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bummock: The Lace Archive Symposium explored and expanded upon issues arising from the research project and residency within the Lace Archive by three artists Andrew Bracey, Danica Maier and Lucy Renton. It focused on an overview of the Lace Archive held at Nottingham Trent University, it’s history and content; a history of contemporary artists working with Nottingham lace; artists working in and accessing archives and collections; hidden stories of collections, through two cases studies and an artist round table discussion of working with the Lace Archive. At the end of the symposium the delegates will have an opportunity for a special preview of the exhibition with informal discussion with the artists involved and food and drink.?Speakers include: Pennina Barnett, Andrew Bracey, Dr. Amanda Briggs-Goode, Deborah Dean, Danica Maier, Lucy Renton, Dr. Sian Vaughan
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.399 | 0.240 |
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".