Bibliographic record
Abstract
Divers éléments indiquent que la mondialisation du marché de l’art favorise la reconfiguration territoriale du monde international de l’art contemporain en quelques grands marchés régionaux, autour des deux pôles que forment l’Europe et les États-Unis. Le plus haut degré de centralisation et la plus forte intégration du marché international de l’art, qui s’expriment entre autres par une prolifération de foires d’art contemporain aux visées internationales, ne signifient toutefois pas pour autant la disparition de réseaux et de marchés artistiques locaux, nationaux ou supranationaux fort diversifiés et qui oeuvrent, à différentes échelles, à la reconnaissance et au rayonnement des artistes. Cette articulation du local au global est ici questionnée à travers l’analyse des stratégies d’internationalisation des galeries québécoises et, plus spécifiquement, de leur participation aux foires internationales d’art contemporain. Les caractéristiques des principales foires sont passées en revue.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 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; 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".