Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis une quarantaine d'années, un certain nombres d’artistes-cinéastes, se situant du côté de l'art vidéo, dans l’art des nouveaux médias ou encore du côté du cinéma dit avant-gardiste, ont successivement pris position face aux changements et innovations technologiques. Il s’agissait non seulement de repenser l’argentique, la fonction esthétique et les composants du cinéma, mais aussi des questions de dispositif au sens large du terme. En tant que modalités de textes écrits, les manifestes occupent une fonction charnière entre création artistique et théorie. Le présent article commente une série de textes déclaratifs tenant lieu de la fonction traditionnelle du manifeste, rédigés par des artistes ou cinéastes. Les discours sur la numérisation héritent souvent de la rhétorique des grands récits de l’avant-garde, empruntant des attitudes apocalyptiques, utopiques ou prophétiques, tout en s’inscrivant dans une tradition moderniste par la revendication de l’innovation, de l’opposition, ou encore de la critique des images.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".