Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental short film was conceived, written and directed by Ashworth, and developed with the support of Seed Fold Films. The project builds on visual experiments with liquid environments begun in How Mermaids Breed (Ashworth 2002), through which Ashworth invented a new material, ‘graspable water’. Mushroom Thief explored another surface area with a dual identity, ‘liquid meadow’, across which the film’s heroine is able to move freely, diving through its membrane into a liquid representation of earth. Mushroom Thief was developed using innovative digital tools, facilitating outdoor stop-frame animation with instant playback. This early use of portable digital stop-frame tools has been readily adopted by a new generation of filmmakers. The script for Mushroom Thief was developed though creative writing workshops organised by author and RCA-based AHRC Fellow in Creative and Performing Arts, Deborah Levy. Levy also assisted in the initial research into visual and literary sources, including liquid meadows and the symbolism of hares and hunters, to inform the narrative of the film, which plays on the close bond found between women, water and earth. In the film, the young male hunter is unable to access the liquidity of the meadow, sliding on its hard surface. The film was produced in collaboration with cinematographer Hugh Gordon, actors Clare Bennett and James Hutchison, and composer Philippe Ciompi. The film was screened at a number of international events, including the ‘Edinburgh International Film Festival’ (2011), ‘Ottawa International Animation Festival’, Canada (2010) and ‘Melbourne International Animation Festival’ (2011). Marking a change in the appeal of Ashworth’s work to contemporary arts audiences, Mushroom Thief was also presented in the ‘Moves11: Intersections’ exhibition at The Bluecoat Gallery, Liverpool (2011) and in a programme titled ‘Into the Woods’, curated by Marina Warner for the Deloitte Ignite Contemporary Arts Festival, Royal Opera House, London (2010).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 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".