Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research background: There has been a significant rise in group-based and collective art practice that challenges conventional methodologies and ideas of individual authorship in art. These enterprises approach art as an expanded form of intellectual activity by capitalizing on group dynamics and collective research. Research contribution: The Weak Force was conceived through several months of video conference calls between the participating artists in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK. The collaborative research process was premised upon the construction and exhibition of a 'universal gravitational field', which affects the sculptural dimensions of distance, place and time. The artists produced a mixed media installation at Anna Leonowens Gallery, which included a specially programed LED sign, a revolving sculptural platform, DNA information about some of the participating artists and site-specific interventions throughout the gallery space. Research significance: The significance of this research is that group-based practice and networking technology was used to extend and combine the practices of five artists working across four different continents. This resulted in a mixed media installation that explored the unifying force of gravity as a metaphor for interconnectedness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
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".