MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7130788659

Balfour

2015· other· en· W7130788659 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hilary Lloyd

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of the Arts London Research Online (University of the Arts London) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionNarrativeExhibitionShot (pellet)Focus (optics)PaintingFrame (networking)Point (geometry)Photography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her third exhibition with Sadie Coles HQ, Hilary Lloyd presents Movie, a new film projected across an entire wall of the gallery’s Balfour Mews space. This extended work combines raw and edited video footage to produce a chain of interconnected images, ranging between narrative fragments and abstract retinal sensations. Evoking a visualised ‘stream of consciousness’, Movie shifts between subjects, perspectives and speeds. Everyday visions and vignettes – flowers, foliage, buildings, illuminated windowpanes or flaring streetlights – reel past, accumulating into a pattern that mirrors the wandering, recurrent movements of thought or consciousness. Certain objects or forms function as repeating motifs (the towerblock of One Canada Square, for example, or a lucidly-outlined leaf), yet the intricate sequencing of the video abstracts these images away from their usual significations or contexts, instead embroidering them into an intricate formalist composition. While the scale of the projection is cinematic, the film’s subjects point towards the small ‘unremembered’ details or fleeting vistas that typically frame the human action of movies: Lloyd relocates the dramatic focus to these marginal and fleeting spectacles. In the process, she jolts the viewer between filmic genres or registers. The camera alternately adopts the fixed, unerring ‘gaze’ found in several of her earlier films, and the mobile viewpoint that she has increasingly employed in more recent pieces. Moving between static and mercurial modes of viewing, and crystalline and indistinct focuses, Lloyd elicits in viewers a sense of the inevitable slippage between objective and subjective (or unstable) ways of interpreting the visible world, while also alluding to cinematic tropes such as the gliding and erratic lens of 1970s cinema or the pornographer’s camera. Traversing, glossing or scrutinising the exterior surfaces of urban reality, Movie gives extended and ambitious treatment to Lloyd’s long-term interests – the changes effected by fractional plays of light, the theatricality of the everyday, the vagaries of the gaze. Alternating between intelligible pictures and dilated or abstracted visions, Movie evokes not only the contingent process of viewing but the formless and unfixable spectres of the mind’s eye. As in previous installations, the physical context of the film’s display will be subsumed into the work: Lloyd is presenting the work in an environment that heightens viewers’ sense of immersion and accentuates the act of viewing. A curtain perforated by circular apertures alludes simultaneously to traditional cinematic décor and the circular flaring lights and similar shapes that punctuate the film. The projection itself, which stops just short of the floor, is itself made to seem like a physical drape or hanging. As critic Kirsty Bell has noted, Lloyd’s exhibitions entail “a fully physical viewing experience that engages hearing and movement as much as looking, that in fact shows vision itself to be contingent on movement and corrupted by sound … The bodies and structures pictured by the moving images are echoed in the viewers’ bodies moving through the space.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4650.157

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of the Arts London Research Online (University of the Arts London)French-language works237,207