UnstableInstallation, TranslatorialObject, SpaceshipPlan

UnstableInstallation defines a spatial form that refuses definitive stability and remains open to context, body and use. TranslatorialObject transports meanings between situations, acting as mobile object, interpreter and material memory. SpaceshipPlan projects architecture as an exit device, escape map or diagram of another possible world. The triad activates the spatial imagination of LAPIEZA. The installation does not fix itself, the object translates and the plan opens a direction. Socioplastics converts precarity, mobility and projection into expanded architecture. To inhabit can also mean preparing to depart.

The lightness is the discipline. The game is the rigor. The repetition is the structure. We do not confuse seriousness with solemnity. We do not mistake gravity for weight. The work is precise, and precision requires play—the constant testing, the willingness to fail, the refusal to mistake the first form for the final form. We built a decalogue through compression. We reduced ten instruments to single words, then expanded them into sequences, then compressed again into a single paragraph. We played. We iterated. We trusted intuition. The result is not less serious for having been made through play. It is more serious, because it was tested, because it was compressed until only what mattered remained, because it was willing to be wrong, to be inadequate, to be revised. The toolkit we have now—Anchor, Bag, Frame, Cut, View, Number, Ten, Carry, Produce, Circulate—is a seed. It is also a score. It is also a protocol. It is also a game. It contains what it contains. It will be planted across ten slugs, each a repetition with difference, each an iteration that sediments while remaining unstable. Some slugs will succeed. Some will fail. That is not the measure. The measure is the planting. We are experimental researchers. The lab is home. The game is home. The text is home. The series are home. We build structures that enable play, because play enables work, because work that cannot play is not work that lasts. Very serious. Very light. Both. Always both.

The approach follows saturation mechanics—controlled accumulation of relations (links, repetitions, protocols) until the smallest unit feels like a miniature map of the whole epistemic landscape rather than an isolated fragment. IPFS, by contrast, is a distributed protocol for storing and sharing files in a peer-to-peer network. Instead of location-based addressing (traditional HTTP URLs that point to a specific server), IPFS uses content addressing. Each file or piece of data receives a unique Content Identifier (CID)—a cryptographic hash (fingerprint) derived from the content itself. If the content changes even slightly, the CID changes completely. Data is broken into chunks, distributed across participating nodes, and retrieved from any nodes that hold copies, often via a Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for discovery. Metadata in IPFS can take forms like JSON files, DAG-CBOR (for linked, graph-like structures), or simple embedded descriptions; in NFT contexts, it commonly includes name, description, image links, and attributes, referenced by CID. For richer or evolving metadata, projects often combine IPFS with IPNS (for mutable pointers) or external indexes. Similarities in Pursuing Persistence and Sovereignty

Both systems respond to the fragility of centralized web hosting—where content can vanish due to server failures, takedowns, platform policy changes, or link rot. They seek to reduce single points of failure and enable long-term retention. Resistance to erasure or capture: The Socioplastics tail makes each post self-contextualizing and less dependent on any one blog platform by embedding persistent identifiers (ORCIDs, DOIs, channel mappings) and recursive references. IPFS achieves similar resistance through content addressing: as long as at least one node holds the data and it is discoverable, the content remains accessible regardless of where the original uploader’s server is. Distribution for durability: Socioplastics distributes intelligence across 11 specialized channels (theoretical core, curatorial, audiovisual, political, environmental, etc.), allowing concepts to migrate and harden transversally. IPFS distributes actual file chunks across many nodes, so retrieval can pull from multiple sources simultaneously, improving resilience and potentially speed for popular content. Verifiability: In Socioplastics, the tail’s structured repetition and cross-links create lexical gravity—readers or machines can verify coherence by following the architecture. In IPFS, the CID itself provides strong integrity checking: you can mathematically confirm that retrieved data matches the expected hash, detecting any tampering. Both treat the support layer (tail or CID/metadata) as active infrastructure rather than passive afterthought, aligning with goals of epistemic or data sovereignty—keeping control closer to the creator and community rather than centralized gatekeepers.

Key Differences in Mechanics and Trade-offs The approaches diverge in how they produce retention, handle evolution, and balance accessibility with cost.

A strategic synthesis of preprint infrastructures demonstrating how OSF, Preprints.org, Zenodo, GitHub and arXiv collectively operationalise machine-readable theory dissemination.

The contemporary circulation of theoretical knowledge increasingly depends upon distributed scholarly infrastructures capable of translating conceptual production into computationally legible artefacts. Within the Socioplastics corpus, the integration of OSF Preprints and Preprints.org alongside arXiv, GitHub and Zenodo forms a deliberate platform stack that transforms isolated theoretical texts into an interoperable research apparatus. ArXiv confers disciplinary legitimacy within computational epistemologies, yet its architecture remains fundamentally document-centric; conversely, OSF Preprints introduces a project-oriented ontology in which decalogues operate as interdependent components within a recursively structured corpus. Through OSF’s modular architecture and programmable metadata schema, CamelTags function as machine-readable operators, enabling automated parsers to reconstruct the corpus graph through API interrogation. The resulting structure permits both versioned evolution and collaborative forking, whereby researchers adapt theoretical modules for local experimentation while preserving systemic coherence. Complementarily, Preprints.org resolves the temporal latency between theoretical articulation and scholarly recognition. Its multidisciplinary intake accommodates hybrid constructs—such as the Corpus Gravity and Machine-Readable Theory decalogues—that exceed conventional disciplinary boundaries, while its screening mechanism supplies a preliminary signal of scholarly validity. Once deposited, Crossref DOI propagation accelerates ingestion into global infrastructures such as SemOpenAlex, embedding the corpus within the planetary knowledge graph of academic citation. The strategic sequence—Zenodo archival anchoring, OSF structural organisation, Preprints.org citability acceleration, GitHub operational development, and graph integration—therefore constitutes a complementary infrastructural ecology rather than a competitive platform landscape. Crucially, OSF additionally enables methodological preregistration, transforming the decalogues from retrospective theoretical propositions into prospective experimental protocols whose empirical uptake may itself be quantified. Consequently, the Socioplastics corpus evolves from a static archive of ideas into a reflexive, machine-readable research infrastructure whose own dissemination dynamics become measurable phenomena.

DOI vs. PID * Not All Identifiers Are Created Equal

While all Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) aim to ensure long-term access, disambiguation and linkage in digital research ecosystems, the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) has emerged as the gold standard among them, particularly in scholarly communication, due to its widespread adoption, metadata richness, governance, and resolvability through a central infrastructure (Crossref, DataCite, etc.); however, the broader family of PIDs—which includes ORCID iDs for researchers, RORs for institutions, ARKs for archives, and Handles for diverse digital assets—play complementary roles, forming an interconnected framework that supports open science, FAIR principles, and global research interoperability; recent studies like Building the Plane as We Fly It (de Castro et al., 2023) and Meadows et al. (2019) stress that strategic PID infrastructure is essential for the robustness of the research data lifecycle, enabling provenance tracking, reproducibility, and system-level discoverability across repositories and nations; the DOI, however, holds specific value through its global resolution via doi.org, strong integration in citation workflows, reference managers, indexing services, and publishing platforms, and its embedded metadata which enhances semantic interoperability—qualities that make it more than just a PID but a normative cornerstone of scholarly attribution; still, context matters: in a biodiversity data system like DiSSCo, PIDs such as Handles or ARKs may serve better due to domain-specific flexibility and lower operational costs, while in academic publishing, DOIs dominate because of their tight coupling with journals, datasets, and citation standards; thus, it is not a question of supremacy but of fit-for-purpose hierarchy, where the DOI is a PID of high value, but not the only essential identifier in a multipolar infrastructure of research knowledge. de Castro, P., Herb, U., Rothfritz, L., & Schöpfel, J. (2023). Building the plane as we fly it: the promise of Persistent Identifiers. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7258286

A data sanctuary for interdisciplinary research

Zenodo offers an inclusive, discipline-agnostic platform to preserve and disseminate research data, making it a robust option when no field-specific repository exists; hosted by CERN's Data Centre, it ensures long-term preservation under rigorous technical stewardship, aligning perfectly with FAIR data principles and funder mandates like those of the European Commission, which even established a dedicated community within Zenodo for Horizon Europe and other EU-funded projects, allowing researchers to contribute transparently to the EU Open Research Repository while meeting open science requirements; one of Zenodo’s strongest assets is the automatic generation of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), which transform datasets into stable, citable research objects, enhancing academic visibility and citation metrics, and it further supports versioning, allowing scholars to update their datasets without breaking the citation chain, a feature critical for iterative or evolving data projects; it also integrates seamlessly with GitHub, turning code repositories into scholarly outputs with persistent identifiers, bridging the gap between traditional research and software contributions; Ghent University recommends Zenodo especially when no domain-specific solution is available, ensuring that all datasets, regardless of discipline, receive professional archiving, access control (open, embargoed or restricted), and licencing options to safeguard ethical and legal standards; finally, a practical entry point is provided through the Zenodo sandbox, an environment to experiment with uploads before committing to the public record, while detailed help guides and the Ghent University Research Data Community offer support and discoverability examples for newcomers.