Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partant d’un questionnement sur le corps et la technologie dans les oeuvres de l’art biotech, cet article vise à problématiser l’imaginaire contemporain de la post-hominisation en exposant les contenus de cet imaginaire, les frontières qu’il explore, l’identité (humaine, hominidé) qu’il convoque à l’heure des technosciences et de leur potentiel d’altération de la « nature humaine ». Dans le but d’illustrer l’hypothèse d’une genèse technique de l’hominisation, plusieurs tableaux synthétiques – mettant notamment en relation les types de corporéité artistique dégagés (cyborgs, clones, bio-mutants, self-hybrides) avec, 1. les cas paradigmatiques en engénierie, génétique et médecine qui tissent l’imaginaire des artistes biotech, 2. les technologies les plus souvent utilisées, 3. les domaines biologiques et extra-biologiques afférents – sont proposés, invitant à une réflexion plus spécifique sur les rapports étroits qu’entretiennent artistes et scientifiques aujourd’hui.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.010 |
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".