COMPILED ARTICLE ABSTRACTS KEYNOTE ADDRESS (1) Michael Century Clashes and Conjunctures in the Epistemic Cultures of Studio-Laboratories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This talk summarizes the findings of a detailed study of how the first computer animation software systems were co-developed by groups of artists, engineers and scientists in various research and experimental development sites in the U.S.A. and Canada between 1965- 1985. The results emphasize and differentiate between the hybrid qualities of these sites, each of which sustained, with varying degrees of stability and longevity, the collaborative efforts of highly skilled individuals who are usually assumed to inhabit very different occupational worlds. These complex mixtures of disciplinary diversity, attitudes toward the conservation or surpassing of conventions, and means for motivating and organizing cooperative efforts, combine in the concept of epistemic culture to underpin the analytical framework. (Knorr-Cetina 1999) The study reveals how the social categories of artist, scientist, and engineer are losing their definitional stickiness, a result which offers a fresh perspective on de-differentiation in knowledge societies. Differences between these highly charged keywords of modernity are not dissolving outright, in an anything-goes style of postmodern leveling; instead, likenesses in the way they seek knowledge and organize work are more helpful in accounting for the outcomes of their interactions than the received, antithetic definitions. Epistemic cultures, in short, help reveal how artists and techno-scientists may be more alike in some ways than different, and to understand the consequences of this way of rethinking disciplinary verities for the organization of innovative work. The empirical material offers detailed analysis of six innovation scenes, 1965-85, blending accounts of the research agendas of scientific researchers and their institutional conditions with the artistic pre-occupations of the animators with whom they collaborated. Five are located in the United States, and one in Canada. The American
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.197 | 0.039 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".