Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can silk inform us of the past, the present and a reimagined future? Jacky Lo explores this question through community art-based workshops, bringing together lost histories, family migration, and personal narratives. Lo examines weaving and embroidery to consider silk as a collaborative exchange of cultures alongside the exploration of family histories—silk’s production also represents diaspora and lost memories of Lo’s Chinese ancestry. The material of silk has been part of Chinese history and economies for centuries. In Canada, the first yard of woven silk was produced in 1922 by the Montreal-based Bruck Silk Mills at their Cowansville location. Connecting the history of silk with his own experiences, the public of Montreal are invited to create their own silk moth through the material consideration of silk and techniques of embroidery. The research confronts the inherent complexities and ethical considerations surrounding silk production. While silk is often considered a sustainable fibre, its production involves the extraction and, in many instances, the immolation of silkworms. Lo’s community gathering becomes a literal tapestry of interconnected narratives, where silk becomes not just a material but a medium for dialogue and cultural exchange. Through his workshops and research, Lo invites us to ponder the stories woven into silk, offering a glimpse into a reimagined future where the threads of the past and present converge, guided by a deeper understanding of our relationship with materials, heritage, and the self.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".