Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si la sémiotique a montré l’importance de la texture dans la signification, la dimension de la matière a été largement négligée. L’article s’efforce de distinguer ces deux dimensions et de caractériser la matière de façon à en montrer l’intérêt pour la sémiotique. En première approximation, la texture se laisse concevoir relativement à la pratique de la peinture alors que la matière nous situe généralement en dehors des pratiques ; mais, en certains cas, elle peut caractériser la peinture et décrit alors une épaisseur du tableau, une tridimensionnalité. Nous partirons de ce constat pour décrire, au travers des oeuvres de Joseph Beuys, la matière comme un actant pouvant régir, au-delà de la forme énoncée, la signification dans son acception la plus large. Décrire ces oeuvres telles des natures mortes nous permettra de montrer que la matière est une structure narrative imposant dès l’abord une axiologie.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".