Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robin Boyd was a polymath whose creative work reverberated across a range of platforms from interiors, architecture, garden design, writing, illustration and public broadcasting. Given this, it is easy to see Boyd as a cultural producer who could create outputs in different media channels. However underlying this media polymath was a bigger agenda: one driven by a desire to explore how spaces were experienced along with communication a broad audience. While traditional forms of media such as Boyd’s well-known television broadcasts, newspaper columns and best-selling books were one way to achieve this, lesser known is Boyd’s explorations into the nexus between architectural space, sound theatre and the new media technologies of the 1960s. Boyd’s theoretical flair with a range of multimedia design experiments are yet to receive the analysis they deserve, yet this analysis is critical in contributing to an alternate view of established Anglo-centric accounts of Australia’s history. At Expo ’67 in Montreal, Canada, Boyd’s ‘Sound Chairs’ embedded pre-recorded tape recordings to create a sonic narrative of Australian identity. At Expo ’70 in Osaka, Japan, Boyd’s ‘Space Tube’ design combined a range of media and spatial apparatuses to create an immersive experience of Australian life. In examining Boyd’s Expo ’67 and Expo ’70 designs, it will be ascertained how and to what degree Boyd sought to evoke altered states.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.013 |
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".