Bibliographic record
Abstract
In art and design practices, materials and technology are means of expression as well as sources\nof inspiration. On the other hand, in technical development processes art and design\nprovide meaning, direction and expressions of functionality. In some sense this duality of\nperspectives is what defines the loci where art, design and technology meet. Over the\npast ten years, the Swedish School of Textiles have taken part in the ongoing discussion\non how practice-based research can further develop our understanding of the\nexpressiveness inherent in new materials and new technology. In this context it is clear\nthat art, design and technology meet in the lab and in the workshop. However, for\ndiscussions across borders between the perspectives of art, design and technology we need\nmeeting places outside of the labs and the workshops as well. The Ambience exhibition is an\nexercise in building such a meeting place, but also an exercise in providing conference space\nfor interaction between artistic practice and theory.\nAs designers and artists working within a research setting, we often work in parallel with\nwriting, presenting conference papers and exhibiting in different arenas. It is then only natural\nto include two ways of presenting results at a conference for artistic research; to let paper\npresentations and exhibition interact to create wider perspectives and deeper understanding.\nAll exhibition contributions have been subject to a peer review process similar to the review\nprocess paper submissions are subjected to. And just as for paper submissions, reviews focus\non originality and skills with respect to both results and presentation.\nThis exhibition is the first in the series of Ambience conferences. The conference is\norganized by the University of Borås in cooperation with Tampere University of Technology\nand is a part of the Smart Textiles Initiative – www.smarttextiles.se\nIn this catalogue you will find images, artist statements and/or project descriptions presenting\nthe works displayed at the exhibition.\nWelcome to the Ambience´11 exhibition!
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".