Penser l'indiscipline : Recherches interdisciplinaires en art contemporain = Creative Con/Fusions : Interdisciplinary Practices in Contemporary Art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This anthology gathers together texts by 13 authors (artists, teachers, curators, theoreticians and art historians) who discuss the notion of interdisciplinarity as it is reflected in Canadian and Quebec contemporary art. L. Hughes and M.-J. Lafortune’s introduction provides an overview of the topics dealt with in the texts, which fall under four groups: the definition and evolution of interdisciplinarity (Clark, Dubois, Jolicœur, Loubier); reflections on pedagogy and artistic practice (Bell, Frenkel, Gogarty/Perron, Lessard, Sioui Durand); interdisciplinarity and contemporary curating (Borsa, Collins); and interdisciplinary art historical scholarship (Lamoureux, Ross). Texts in French or English, with abstracts in both languages. Biographical notes on authors. Circa 150 bibl. ref.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".