Bibliographic record
Abstract
A love, single channel film, presented in the group exhibition Miraculous Noise, held at Viborg Kunsthal, Denmark. \n \nThe exhibition Miraculous Noise comprised of single channel artists' moving image works foregrounding relationships and connections between sound and image within a single work, as well as the broader relationship between visual arts and music. \nThe treatment of audio and its relationship to the visual formed a key focus for this group exhibition, whether by sound that may be heard or by captions that may be read. \n \nArtists exhibiting in the exhibition: Christian Noelle Charles & Matthew Arthur Williams, Anne-Marie Copestake, Jamie Crewe, Sarah Forrest, Luke Fowler, Ashanti Harris, Adam Lewis Jacob, Florrie James, Wendy Kirckup & Richy Carey, Duncan Marquiss, Alberta Whittle. \n \n \nThe exhibition seeks to reflect on the essential connection between artists' moving image and music communities which has contributed so much to Scotlands cultural vitality. \nBodil Johanne Monrad, Viborg Kunsthal
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.152 | 0.050 |
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".