S’exposer aux aléas. Essai sur les risques du rapport esthétique et politique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La notion de risque occupe une place fondamentale dans les créations artistiques soucieuses des manifestations politiques qui les bordent, les transforment et qu'elles engendrent. Il s'agit en ce sens de comprendre le risque à travers les rapports qui viennent lier esthétique et politique, en faisant du même coup appel à la philosophie, à la sociologie, aux communications et à l'histoire. Dans cette perspective, le risque sera d'abord abordé sous ses dimensions intersubjectives : risque d'affronter le chaos, risque de destruction sans bornes, voire même d'autodestruction, mais aussi risque d'égocentrisme et d'incompréhension. Par la suite, une attention soutenue sera accordée au risque inhérent au hasard, à l'imprévisibilité constitutive des effets politiques de l'oeuvre : risques de récupération, d'instrumentalisation propagandiste ou pédagogique, etc. Ainsi, nous tenterons de voir, à travers cet essai, en quoi le risque vient périlleusement lier art et communication, et donc comment une compréhension des risques encourus en art comme en politique peut contribuer aux diverses démarches d'émancipation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".