Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir des installations muséales de l’artiste contemporain Jimmie Durham et en tenant compte de ses réflexions, cet article propose une analyse des mécanismes mis en oeuvre afin d’exposer la « normalité », ou le regard courant porté sur les objets, que l’artiste a observé chez son public, celui des musées occidentaux. Durham présente des objets banals ou stéréotypés dans des vitrines avec cartels, composant des installations produites spécifiquement pour leur public, lequel est invité à s’engager dans les oeuvres. Il met en évidence la « normalité », en opérant notamment par des décalages humoristiques, et la fait entrer dans les musées en exposant des artéfacts qui ne s’y trouvent pas habituellement. Durham dévoile des implications occultées mais oppressantes de ce regard, en particulier en contexte colonial, et tente, par diverses investigations, de provoquer une réflexivité chez le spectateur dans le but de l’ouvrir à d’autres regards sur soi et sur les autres.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".