Bibliographic record
Abstract
La scène canonique de l’Annonciation a été traitée par la peinture, durant deux ou trois siècles, comme un défi à la mise en scène : comment conjoindre le céleste et le terrestre ? Des solutions trouvées pour ce « dispositif annonciatif », cet article cherche à interroger la reprise dans certains films. On s’intéresse surtout aux films qui, sans citer littéralement aucun tableau, manifestent une « migration » de la peinture, par leur souci de produire du figuratif en réinterrogeant à neuf la situation symbolique, sans se reposer sur des êtres de fiction plus ou moins fantastiques. Ainsi, « faire des Annonciations », pour certains cinéastes, n’a pas été une volonté d’ennoblir culturellement leurs films, mais la démonstration d’un désir de manier ensemble des formes, des thèmes et des figures – c’est-à-dire de produire, non un geste de peintre, mais un geste d’ auteur.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".