Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quels liens la saudade, expression majeure de la littérature portugaise du XVIe siècle peut-elle à priori entretenir vis-à-vis de la photographie contemporaine ? Difficilement traduisible, la saudade nous éveille un être ou un lieu cher dont l’absence ou la perte nous cause autant de tristesse que joie. Pourtant la saudade se révèle aussi comme une pensée singulière opérant une synthèse temporelle et spatiale de l’expérience éprouvée vis-à-vis du monde, par un agencement « virtuel » d’images. Ce sentiment construit, au fil du temps, un imaginaire dont la poïétique révèle paradoxalement présent, par son absence, tout ce qui fut mais qui n’est plus, ou encore la nostalgie de ce qui ne serait pas encore advenu ?
 
 The image-saudade: photographic iconography of a double-edged feeling
 
 Which relations can the saudade, a major expression of the Portuguese literature of the 16th century, maintain a priori with contemporary photography? If the saudade remains not easily translatable, it wakes up the remembrance related to a beloved being or place – whose absence, lack or loss cause us as much sadness as joy. However, the saudade also appears as a singular thought operating a temporal and spatial synthesis coming from man’s experience of the world, a “virtual” collage governed like a true layout of images. This feeling has built, all long time, an imaginary field revealed as present by poetry, paradoxically through its own absence — all that was, one day, but which is not anymore, or perhaps, the nostalgia for what has not occurred yet.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".