Les sculptures pop (1966-1969) de Claire Hogenkamp : art critique ou mannequins de pacotille?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au départ l’auteure souligne que les travaux de la sculpteure qu’elle étudie font partie du courant figuratif ayant contesté, au cours des années soixante, le formalisme en arts visuels. En commentant des oeuvres présentées à l’exposition « People in the Park » l’auteure montre que Claire Hogenkamp a pratiqué une satire marquée, mais indulgente (non culpabilisante) de la féminité et de la masculinité construites essentiellement sur des rapports de séduction hypercodés suggérés par l’imagerie publicitaire et la photographie commerciale. Elle précise que le contenu de ces oeuvres, par leur effet de distanciation du réel, montre l’évidence du règne du faux, particulièrement dans le cas de la féminité construite par les médias commerciaux. Finalement, l’auteure démontre que cette recherche d’Hogenkamp constitue une critique sociale forte des comportements homme-femme stéréotypés, ce qui du coup révèle la fonction idéologique de l’art, c’est-à-dire sa nécessaire portée critique.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".