MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7112893204

How To: Mind The Moon

2023· other· en· W7112893204 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGoldsmiths (University of London) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)ParanormalHumanityDesert (philosophy)Resource (disambiguation)Sociology of scientific knowledge
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How To: Mind The Moon was a workshop that culminated in the generation of a perverted material library by Lev Bratishenko, Francelle Cane, Anastasia Kubrak, Jane Mah Hutton, Marija Marić, Amelyn Ng, Bethany Rigby, and Fred Scharmen. "Space mining, the extraction of resources in outer space, is a project tending to become a reality. In search of rare minerals, metals, and other valuable materials, the wild imaginaries of extraction-driven growth have literally transcended the boundaries of Earth. This displacement of resource exploitation from the exhausted Earth to its ‘invisible’ hinterland—the Moon and other celestial bodies—calls for an urgent debate on the impact this shift will have on our understanding of land, resources, and commons. How to: mind the moon offers another way of reading five lunar materials: regolith, lunar dust, solar wind, seconal sodium, and aluminium. A perversion of the format of a material sample and datasheet—technical documents commonly used in material science to describe chemical and mechanical properties of materials—the workshop outlines another kind of material library, that which goes beyond the perceived scientific neutrality of materials. Instead, it frames the political, social, environmental, and cultural conditions of materials, both as a physical matter and a form of fiction." [Workshop Description from CCA: How To Mind The Moon] How To: Mind The Moon was a workshop hosted by the Canadian Centre for Architecture. This project would have been impossible without research conversations with Abigail Calzada Diaz, Ian Crawford, Alice Gorman, and Rory Rowan. How to: mind the moon was developed in collaboration with the Luxembourg Pavilion at the 18th International Architecture Exhibition – La Biennale di Venezia. The outcome of the workshop, a material library, was produced and exhibited as part of the exhibition Down to Earth of the 2023 Luxembourg Pavilion in Sale d’Armi, Arsenale di Venezia, curated by Francelle Cane and Marija Marić.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.032

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGoldsmiths (University of London)French-language works237,207