Le travail de Madeleine Berkhemer, Jemima Stehli et Andrea Fraser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les auteures proposent une analyse comparative de trois oeuvres de trois artistes femmes qui poussent à la limite le projet d’auto-objectivation sexuelle comme oeuvre d’art. Il sera d’abord question d’une photographie de Madeleine Berkhemer,Molly in Blue(2000), où l’artiste se présente harnachée de pièces de bas de nylon dans une pose classique de pin-up. Ensuite, le projetStrip Series(1999-2000) de Jemima Stehli sera à l’étude. Dans ce projet artistique, qui relève à la fois de la photographie et de la performance, l’artiste se déshabille devant différents hommes qui occupent un poste de pouvoir dans le monde de l’art. Enfin, les auteures se pencheront surUntitled(2003) d’Andrea Fraser, où l’artiste a, en guise d’oeuvre, une relation sexuelle tarifée et filmée avec un collectionneur. Paradoxalement, en endossant de manière extrême le statut d’objet sexuel/objet d’art, ces trois femmes revendiquent aussi une subjectivité sexuelle et créative hautement subversive.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".