MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014699254 · doi:10.7202/006734ar

Aby Warburg et les timbres en tant que document culturel

2003· article· fr· W2014699254 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen Michels, Charlotte Schoell‐Glass

Bibliographic record

VenueProtée · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultidisciplinary Warburg-centric Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’historien de l’art allemand Aby Warburg (1866-1929), fondateur de la Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek Warburg à Hambourg (1926) – rétablie à Londres en 1933 sous le nom de l’Institut Warburg –, est célèbre surtout pour son approche originale des études culturelles. Spécialiste de l’art et de la culture de la Renaissance, il a transformé la conception de l’histoire de l’art de son temps en éliminant autant que possible la barrière entre les formes classique et populaire de l’art. Pour Warburg, une forme populaire, telle que le timbre-poste, était en principe aussi riche en tant que message culturel que l’œuvre d’art classique et devait jouer un rôle positif dans l’expression culturelle. Ainsi voulait-il, dans les années 1920, participer à la création d’une émission de timbres commémorant le traité de Locarno, le premier accord de coopération entre la France, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Allemagne, signé après la Première Guerre mondiale. Cet article suivra le processus de conception et de réalisation de ce timbre, prévu pour la poste aérienne et portant l’inscription « Idea Vincit », en soulignant l’importance, dans la République Weimar, de la création dans le domaine public de formes modernes de design.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtéeSame topicMultidisciplinary Warburg-centric StudiesFrench-language works237,207