MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043442844

Shift : Ruskin's Good Looking!

2019· other· en· W7043442844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionRigourPremiseClothingRelevance (law)Table of contentsObject (grammar)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shift is one a series of wax drawings the outcomes of the Ruskin's Good Looking! project , exhibited in Ruskin’s Good Looking! and published in exhibition catalogue, 2019. Ruskin's Good Looking! is an exhibition of large-scale wax drawings exhibited at Brantwood (John Ruskin museum) for the worldwide Ruskin Bicentenary programme in 2019. Ruskin’s Elements of Drawing (1857) argues that drawing sharpens visual attention. This project puts this premise to the test, using it to uncover material ‘clues’ of Ruskin’s life embedded in his clothing. The project methodology brought together an artist (Casey) and Canadian curator- ‘Dress Detective’ (Ingrid Mida) to visually examine the garments through drawing combining their research specialisms to unite the rigour of a forensic examination with the poetic approach to object based analysis.This is the first time that these garments have undergone close visual analysis. Casey's drawing discovered features in the garments revealing new narratives. The drawings are made through a new specialist technique developed by Casey for this project. The exhibition and supporting catalogue provide new evidence for the value of drawing as a research method, contributing to a growing debate within studies of material culture (Mida 2014; Causey 2017; Anderson 2018). The catalogue includes by international scholars Anuradha Chatterjee ( UNSW Sydney)Ingrid Mida ( Ryerson University Toronto). The exhibition is be part of a year-long programme of activities critically reappraising the work of Ruskin. The methodology and outputs will provide new insights into the language, forms and processes of drawing and explore its relevance as an interdisciplinary research tool. This responds to current debates within the drawing research community about the relationship of drawing to other disciplines (Garner 2008, Ridley & Rodgers 2010, Anderson 2015, 2016).The project was supported by The Brantwood Trust, Lancaster University and an artist International Development Fund award from Arts Council England and the British Council. The research was shared in public workshops for the Being Human Festival 2018 supported by Being Human, The British Academy, AHRC and Centre for Advanced Studies, University of London. The exhibition featured on the cover of Textile Journal and on ITV news.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.288

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)French-language works237,207