Cardiff and Miller’s Road Trip (2004): Between Archive and Fiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses an installation by the Canadian artists Cardiff and Miller to reflect on the nature of archival relationships and the possibilities of the archive as a fictional device. Road Trip is interpreted as a form of archive, creating relationships between different documentary layers that play out across time. It is suggested that the work’s impact derives from the tensions between the evidentiary and the narrative characteristics of the different “documents.” As an artwork, the constructed nature of Road Trip and its power to evoke an emotional response are obvious and intentional; nevertheless, these qualities are inherent in all archives. Art’s power to move reminds us of the need to be aware of the latent and potential layers of meaning within archives and the multifarious relationships they both embody and construct. RÉSUMÉ Ce texte se fonde sur une installation des artistes canadiens Cardiff et Miller afin de réfléchir sur la nature des liens archivistiques, et sur les possibilités de l’archive comme appareil littéraire. L’auteure y interprète Road Trip comme une forme d’archives qui crée des liens entre les diverses couches documentaires qui se manifestent avec le temps. Elle suggère que l’impact de cette oeuvre provient des tensions entre les caractéristiques probantes et narratives des « documents » différents. Comme oeuvre d’art, la nature interprétée de Road Trip et son pouvoir de susciter une réaction émotive sont évidents et intentionnels; néanmoins, ces qualités sont inhérentes à toutes les archives. Le fait que l’art détient ce pouvoir de susciter une réaction émotive nous rappelle le besoin d’être conscient des diverses couches de sens cachées et potentielles à l’intérieur des archives, ainsi que des liens multiples qui sont incarnés par les archives, ou encore, construits par elles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".