What does 'media define what really is' mean? (Part I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay (13.000 words) outlines the general, conceptual framework of material presented in a series of five lectures delivered in the fall of 2015 at the facilities of the Athens School of Fine Arts’ annex in the village of Delphi, where faculty members and students – artists, theorists, programmers and technologists – from the Athens School of Fine Arts (Athens-Greece) and OCAD University (Toronto-Canada) formed an international workshop team for the purpose of experimenting and reflecting on the subject of “affect & emotion in artistic practice”. My contribution to the project aimed at thematizing a number of topics – touching upon matters of philosophy, aesthetics, science, art history, cultural and media studies – that I deemed relevant to the core subject of our workshop. The present essay – to be published in a collective volume by OCAD University in 2016 – draws heavily on themes and topics thoroughly elaborated and developed in my doctoral thesis (PhD), obtained in 2008, titled: Into the den of phenomenality – Toward a philosophy & aesthetics of simulation, that one can find online at the website of the Greek National Archive of PhD Theses.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.018 |
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".