Group Exhibition: For Folk Sake, Cut Arts Centre, Halesworth, UK, 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For Folk Sake is an exhibition and curatorial concept deliberately pulling together work by artists from across the breadth and depth of Suffolk, from Lowestoft to Leiston, Saxmundham to Sudbury and Diss, and everywhere in between, as a means to link up, unite, and celebrate the dynamic and diverse artist practices that populate and lift the county, all under one roof. For Folk Sake has no overarching theme other than an ambition to bring together a rich mix of significant artists from across the region, as if a kind of maintenance of sorts; a snapshot of current ideas, thinking, concepts, media, and materials, punctuating this time; and delivering such outcomes to a broader national/international audience while supporting and creating the conditions for an acknowledgment and further development of artist practices that continue to grow, share, and expand, FOR FOLK SAKE. For this exhibition I chose one recent painting from 2022 that demonstrated my ongoing enquiries into the relations between painting and the digital. In particular, this painting included a digital poster within the combination of poured household paints, transparent varnishes and the graphic symbols. Renata Adela, Amanda Ansell, SE Barnet, Les Bicknell, Bob Bicknell Knight, Susan Brinkhurst, Emily Cannell, Jo Chapman, John Christie, Max Clements, Alexander Costello, Graham Crowley, Karen Densham, Annabel Dover, Edgefield, Laurance Edwards, Hayley Field, Poppy Jackson, Abigail Lane, Sarah Lucas, Jane K Morter, Clare Mynott, Sian O'Keefe, Clare Palmier, Ruth Philo, Rebecca Riess, Tom Scannell, Hannah Stageman, Michael Stubbs, Srinivas Surti, Jeven Watkins Jones, Simon Wilde, Jane Watt, Emma Withers.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.703 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".