The participation through JR's artwork.: Critical approach of the ' Inside Out Project'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Questions and methodological approachMost research describes the relationship between the contemporary phenomena graffiti and street art as complex.For example, graffiti and street art have been described in terms of a development, where street art has developed out graffiti, as well as closely related but different sociocultural contexts.However, the wider public discourses on graffiti and street art differ widely, and street art is, in contrast to graffiti, not stigmatized and rarely framed as primarily a criminal activity.Consequently, there are also many cases where graffiti and street art are framed as a dichotomy, where the latter is positioned as creative and beautiful while the former is described as unsophisticated and ugly.In contrast to such polarized understandings, 'street art' has also been used as an umbrella term, denoting various kinds of informal image production in the public realm -including pieces and throw-ups that in other cases would be defined as graffiti.Thus, while most research suggests that the terms 'graffiti' and 'street art' denote partially different phenomena, it is also difficult to pinpoint a clear delineation between them.This article departs from the assumption that the concepts 'graffiti' and 'street art' themselves should be regarded as a part of the studied cultural context, and as such, empirical material rather than preconditioned categories from where the research departs.The concepts themselves are thus viewed as cultural phenomena in their own right, and as such, negotiated in time and space, similarly to the content German
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 | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".