Improvisation et son direct. Entre théories du son et mutations technologiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs études ont montré comment la postsynchronisation a permis à des cinéastes majeurs (parmi lesquels Eisenstein, Godard et Welles) de renouveler les formes cinématographiques à partir de rencontres inédites entre images et sons, le montage s’apparentant alors à une pratique de composition. A priori, cette pratique s’oppose à celle des cinéastes du « direct » qui, utilisant ou devançant les évolutions techniques liées à l’enregistrement, fondent une partie de leur esthétique sur la captation du son direct. Cependant, il apparaît ici que ces cinéastes, dont certains s’inspirent de la pratique musicale du jazz, renouvellent à leur tour les formes cinématographiques selon d’autres modes de mise en relation des sons et des images reposant notamment sur l’improvisation. Partant d’une brève étude des textes fondateurs de cette « esthétique du direct », plusieurs analyses permettent de mettre au jour différents dispositifs qui trouvent leur origine à la télévision mais que le cinéma s’est appropriés pour développer une poétique du direct inspirée du jazz.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.004 |
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".