holding one's own in an unfinished system : Juliette Blightman & Ellie Epp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“holding one’s own in an unfinished systemit simply stresses the multiples at play”This exhibition takes its name from a 1987 text by Canadian artist Ellie Epp. The unfinished systems in which Epp and British artist Juliette Blightman hold their own are multiple: from the commitments of the artists’ daily lives, to the context of the societies they occupy, to the art institutions which provide one possible frame for their work. Both Blightman and Epp accumulate text and images amassing personal archives without the need to always establish an audience.Is to hold one’s own in an unfinished system to withdraw? Both Epp and Blightman develop an enmeshed relationship between the public and the private. Perhaps withdrawal can be acknowledged as a means for the artist to oscillate in and out of sight, a strategy that allows both for an available exit, but also an entrance to return—a porous position both in and out of the system, interior and exterior. Currents throughout the practices of both Blightman and Epp carry the residue of recorded moments throughout the Badischer Kunstverein. For Blightman, a photograph can also be the study for one painting, and then another, with all three exhibited alongside each other before being re-photographed. For Epp, images from a childhood landscape become notes in origin. They are bookended in this exhibition by her film and an episodic text assembled from not only Epp’s words but also those of family, friends and predecessors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".