Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work of art, the gallery system, the history of art, and the social-cultural \nmantle which encloses and validates it all have long been regarded as separate entities \nwhich negotiate an ongoing collaborative relationship. However, this thesis contends \nthat all formerly accepted limitations and structures of art can be disassembled to be \nrepurposed as mutable and boundary-less raw materials of art practice. Simulating \nthe mature career retrospective catalogue of the respected visual artist, Josh Morden \nproblematizes these separate but correlating realms in order to pose the act of cultural \nproduction as a process of creative self-consumption. Authoring his own fame, interviews \nand mythology as a method to examine the psychological effect and intent surrounding \nthe discourse of art, he creates a recursive document presenting himself as the focus of his \nresearch, examining the intent and accomplishments of his artistic practice from a fictive \nthird-party perspective. Utilizing cannibalization and appropriation as praxial methods of \nartistic production, he explores the questions surrounding meaning, intent and the nature \nof the endgame in the creation and theorization of art.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.187 | 0.058 |
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".