Bibliographic record
Abstract
La manière dont les artistes s’intéressent aux archives peut nous permettre de découvrir de nouveaux aspects à propos de ces dernières. C’est sous cet angle que cet article aborde le cas de l’artiste américain Robert Rauschenberg, par le biais de la dimension archivistique de son oeuvre. Dans un premier temps, nous présentons un aperçu du mouvement américain des archives dans l’art au cours des années 1960, au sein duquel s’inscrit Rauschenberg. Nous effectuons ensuite une brève revue de la littérature portant sur les liens qui unissent cet artiste et les archives, pour ensuite aborder sa démarche artistique et son intérêt pour l’inventaire, l’archivage et la cueillette de documentation. Cet intérêt pour les archives est notamment perceptible à même sa collection d’art privée, rendue publique à l’automne 2012. Finalement, une lecture archivistique d’un corpus de trois oeuvres de l’artiste fournit une illustration des particularités de l’utilisation des archives chez Rauschenberg.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".