Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 10 minute single channel video work blending archive film and newly shot footage to explore the language of cinema through engagement with questions of collective memory, subjectivity and narrative structure. Blackout takes as its starting point a dialogue between two characters in a Hollywood film (The Swimmer, 1968). By blending\n\narchive film and newly shot video material through cinematic devices, Hollywood fiction and autobiographical fact are distilled\n\ninto a poetic form as Maziere playfully tricks the viewer into connecting disparate images of varied historical and geographical\n\ncontexts. In this way the work aims to present individual emotional experiences as conditioned and read through the mediated\n\nand collective world of cinema.\n\nIt is the language of cinema that informs this current investigation, as part of an ongoing engagement with collective memory,\n\nsubjectivity and narrative structure. Through the denuded narrative and deliberate absence of clear characterisation, Blackout\n\nexamines how the viewer is compelled to fill the contextual vacuum and create a more intense personal, perceptual framework\n\nto experience the work.\n\nBlackout was constructed using only minutes of material culled from over 40 hours of newly shot footage and research into\n\ndozens of feature films from Hollywood film noir and European cinema. The theoretical background to this work is rooted in\n\nMaziere’s own theoretical writings and publishing at that period, notably the The Undercut Reader, Nina Danino/Michael\n\nMaziere (ed), Wallflower Press, London, 2002.\n\nOriginally exhibited at Wigmore Fine Art, London (January 2001). Subsequently selected for two major international touring\n\nexhibitions: ‘Light Structures’ curated by Dryden Goodwyn launched at Tate Britain; ‘Desktop Icons’, curated by Chris Byrne\n\nwent on to 22 international venues. Also exhibited at over 30 international festivals and venues including, New York, Berlin, Sao\n\nPaulo, Rotterdam, Oberhausen, Milano, Amsterdam, Vienna, Lima, Palermo, Athens and Basel. Subsequently the artist was\n\nselected to lead the International Residency at BANFF in Canada. Citations include Elwes (2005).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.539 | 0.161 |
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".