Ekphrasis : au lieu de décrire ce qu’ils voyaient, ils réalisèrent ce qui était décrit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette contribution s’insère dans le domaine des recherches actuelles en didactique des arts visuels mettant en évidence les pratiques de la réception des œuvres. Elle rend compte d’un projet d’apprentissage artistique prenant comme matière la collection René et Madeleine Junod et pratiquée durant quatre mois de leçons hebdomadaires dans deux classes de 7e maturité d’une école publique de la ville de La Chaux-de-Fonds en Suisse. Le projet a été vécu en trois parties : un exercice d’ekphrasis et de reproduction par la méthode de la grille de copie en salle de classe, une série de « jeux de stimulation de l’observation » pendant une visite au musée, complétée par les activités de dessin et coloriage à la maison et en salle de classe. Cet article est centré sur le premier exercice de « l’ekphrasis » où il a été proposé aux élèves la description de quatre tableaux de styles, thèmes et artistes différents. Chaque descriptif posait des contraintes en termes de composition des images et d’interprétation d’un vocabulaire spécifique aux arts visuels. Ekphrasis: Instead of describing what they were seeing, they created what was described This contribution goes into the domain of current research in Visual Arts didactics putting in evidence the methods of the “réception d’œuvre”. It reports an artistic learning project based on René and Madeleine Junod’s collection and practiced during four month of weekly Visual Arts lessons in two 7th grade classes of a public school in the city of La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland. The project was built in three parts: an “ekphrasis” activity, which implies describing by words a few paintings of the collection, then copying them using the “grille de copie” method; a few “games of observation skills stimulation” during the visit of a museum, then reinforced and completed by the “painting and drawing activities” at home and in the classroom. This article focuses only on the first exercise of the “ekphrasis” in which four paintings descriptions, all of different styles, themes and artists, were given to the students. Each description setting represented a constraint in terms of images composition and interpretation of a specific Visual Arts vocabulary.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".