Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’avènement de l’art naïf en Haïti dans les années 1940 bouleverse le monde des langages plastiques du pays. Il survient au moment où s’affirme le tournant ethnologique et apparaît comme une de ses multiples fécondations. Or deux faits se révèlent à l’analyse : d’une part le jugement esthétique qui instaure le nouveau genre artistique en Haïti ne procède pas de l’esthétique indigène prônée par l’école haïtienne d’ethnologie, d’autre part celle-ci éprouve de grandes difficultés à accompagner cet art, à le penser ou, tout simplement, à l’approcher. En fait, on est en présence de deux ordres de choses distincts advenus dans le cadre d’un même paradigme. Une parenté qui a facilité l’établissement d’une relation d’engendrement entre eux. D’autant plus que l’ethnologie propose une caractérisation globale de la société, à partir de laquelle on a pu justifier et élaborer des explications du phénomène artistique. Le discours haïtien sur l’art y a recouru, ce qui lui a valu sa force autant que sa faiblesse.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".