MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001598193 · doi:10.3828/bhs.2011.14

Pen and Brush in Dialogue: Octavio Paz and Antoni Tàpies in their Transatlantic <i>Livre d'Artiste</i>

2011· article· en· W2001598193 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Hispanic Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComparative Literary Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalanArtPoetryHumanitiesPaintingArt historyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper interprets the interaction between painting and language from the respective political contexts of Catalan artist and Mexican poet in Antoni Tapies' livre d'artiste, Petrificada petrificante (Maeght Gallery, 1978) of the poem of the same title by Octavio Paz. I argue that in this little-known art book the artist emphasizes along with Paz the need to revise language and symbols to find appropriate representations to reflect the contemporary city. This transatlantic cultural product establishes a dialogue, not only between word and art but also between artistic perspectives that respond to socio-political currents in Spain and Mexico of the 1970s.Este articulo interpreta la interaccion entre el lenguaje y la pintura desde el contexto politico del artista catalan y del poeta mexicano, respectivamente, en el livre d'artiste de Antoni Tapies (Maeght Gallery, 1978) del poema, Petrificada petrificante, de Octavio Paz. Argumento que, en este livre d'artiste poco conocido, el artista subraya junto a Paz...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.021
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Hispanic StudiesSame topicComparative Literary Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207