Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working with video, textile, autofiction, and various installation processes, Sophie Seita’s and Naomi Woo’s exhibition pulls out and reroots the speculative potential of archives and queer history. Developed in conversation with The Hildegard von Bingen Society for Gardening Companions, a queer-feminist collective originally founded by the German mediaeval mystic and musician Hildegard von Bingen in the 12th century and ‘propagated’ by the artists in 2020—the exhibition centres on a queer gardening talk show, bingenTV, supposedly shot in 1987 and never aired, until now. Playful and flirty, this genre-bending talk show features a cast of queer characters real and fictional, past and present, in a whirlwind jaunt through space and time. For the duration of the exhibition, the space will be activated through readings, workshops, and performances, by Youngsook Choi, Taey Iohe, Sophie Seita, Naomi Woo, Ashley Au, and Sister Steve of Ophelia Drowning (Kell w Farshéa). bingenTV is conceived by artists Naomi Woo and Sophie Seita, in conversation with The Hildegard von Bingen Society for Gardening Companions, produced by Queer Art Projects and funded by Canada Council for the Arts, Arts Council England, and the Art Department at Goldsmiths, University of London.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.766 | 0.550 |
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".