The Adjacency & Contamination Mapper - Structural Relationship Calculator

Experiment with this research tool

Individuals and institutions interested in experimenting with this tool are welcome to contact Museum of One. On request, I can send the GitHub repository or a copy of the tool itself. Please name the tool and describe your intended research use.

← Research Tools and Experiments · Research Programmes ↗

Research tool record. This page documents the tool and its method. The interactive application is not embedded, and this page does not accept material for analysis.

Summary ↓ · Procedure ↓ · Worked example ↓ · Citation ↓

Record at a glance

• Purpose: Inspect assumptions about dominance, flattening, and narrative pressure in a proposed pairing.
• Responsibility: Dorian Vale; maintained by Museum of One.
• Tool version: No numbered tool release is specified in the public record.
• Method reference: Researcher-defined attributes and relational parameters, followed by fixed calculations and an inspectable log.
• Research status: Experimental rule-based model; design documented.
• Documentation revised: 17 October 2026. This dates the record, not a new tool release.

Evidence status: Repeatable calculations demonstrate consistency within selected rules, not validated effects on viewers or works.

The Adjacency & Contamination Mapper is a diagnostic thinking instrument for examining relations between two works. It asks what a pairing may impose on each work through proximity, sequence, contrast, and scale. The term contamination names the risk that a relation may overwrite a work’s distinct presence; it is not a judgment that contact between works is inherently undesirable.

What it does

The documented design accepts researcher-defined structural attributes for each work and parameters for their relation, including distance, overlap, and sequence. Fixed formulas produce a profile of modelled relational pressures, with a calculation log that makes the operations inspectable.

• Dominance: a modelled imbalance in the relation between the works.
• Amplification: the possibility of mutual reinforcement or escalation.
• Flattening: pressure to treat distinct works as interchangeable evidence of one theme.
• Narrativization: pressure to turn a pairing into a shared story.
• Resolution pressure: an expectation that the relation should culminate in a synthesis or conclusion.

How the method works

The original design separates inputs, calculation steps, indices, and a summary. A researcher can inspect how a changed input changes the result. Any optional assisted visual observations belong to a separate, non-deterministic layer and must not be treated as the source of the fixed calculations. The useful record includes the chosen attributes and formulas, not only the final profile.

Procedure at a glance

Worked example

Illustration only. This constructed example is not a software run, validation result, or report of participant findings.

Constructed comparison: keep the two works, their assigned attributes, scale, and sequence fixed. Increase only their spacing in a second model configuration.

• Declare the inputs: Retain both configurations and identify which input represents spacing. Researcher-assigned attributes remain judgments even when their values stay fixed.
• Trace the calculation: If a reported index changes, identify the formula and intermediate operation responsible. No formula or numerical result is supplied in this illustration, so no index value is asserted.
• Limit the conclusion: A changed model result would show sensitivity to spacing under those rules. It would not prove reduced contamination, greater independence, or a different visitor response.

What this establishes: The worked audit specifies what must be recorded to make a comparison inspectable. Any numerical demonstration would also need the exact formula set, input values, and calculation log.

Why it belongs to Post-Interpretive Criticism

PIC’s objection to interpretive possession also concerns the relations a display constructs. A pairing can make one work serve as the explanation of another or require both to resolve into a single account. The Mapper makes those pressures explicit enough to question. It does not decide whether the works should be paired; that decision remains a curatorial responsibility.

Scope and limits

Repeatable arithmetic establishes consistency within a model, not the truth of its categories. Researcher-assigned values and selected formulas remain assumptions. The outputs are not predictions of viewer response, direct measurements of an encounter, or proof that a pairing causes harm. They are prompts for examining an arrangement against the works and the available evidence.

Related research

Experimental Curatorial Space broadens the inquiry to environmental conditions. Encounter Differential separates the record of a viewing situation from an interpretation of that record.

Citation and revision

Suggested citation. Select and copy the following text:

Vale, Dorian. The Adjacency & Contamination Mapper - Structural Relationship Calculator. Museum of One, 2026. Research tool record; documentation revised 17 October 2026. https://www.museumofone.art/the-adjacency-contamination-mapper/

Methodological reference: Post-Interpretive Method. This supplies ethical and methodological context, not evidence that this instrument has been validated.

Revision note · 17 October 2026. Added the record summary, procedure diagram, constructed example, evidence-status distinction, and suggested citation. This is a documentation revision. No new software release, participant findings, or validation result is announced.

← Back to Research Tools and Experiments · Phenomenological Methods and Diagnostic Reading ↗