MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7082255840 · doi:10.32920/ifmj.v5i1-2.2422

Living Room

2025· article· en· W7082255840 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Film and Media Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemolitionRealmHousing estateAssemblage (archaeology)ArchitectureLiving roomEveryday lifeExhibitionObject (grammar)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Living Room is an interactive, multimodal online documentary. It engages with the demolition of a modernist public housing estate in inner London (UK). The demolition is presented through the point of view of those working-class and racialized residents who find themselves at risk of displacement and dispossession through the regeneration/demolition project, and who refuse its logics. Rather than understanding ‘demolition’ as a one-off spectacular event, the project posits it as an assemblage of processes unfolding in space and time, and across domains and scales. The architecture of the website reflects this understanding of the demolition assemblage as a range of interlocking dynamics which braid together political, economic, legal and architectural concerns with notions of deservingness, domestic space, emotional and financial investments and value creation. The central location of the i-doc is a living room on the estate, which references the everyday living space, where the private realm of domestic life and the public realm of economics and politics bleed into each other. From this central living room the user can chose between 5 different pathways, each linked to a key theme (the law, the media, housing campaigns, walkways, house stories), and a timeline. Each pathway reflects an element of the demolition assemblage, and instantiations of the residents’ refusal emerge within each pathway, at times explicitly, and at times more implicitly. The users of Living Room experience a polyphonic range of counternarratives and oppositional practices that dissenting residents have been producing over 20 years of refusing regeneration/demolition. The non-linear structure of the site follows the anticipatory, recursive and reiterative temporalities that characterise regeneration/demolition and its refusals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Film and Media JournalSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207