Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article attire l’attention sur un ensemble de pratiques artistiques qui relèvent de l’« intervention », de la « performance » et de l’« installation » et qui entendent déconstruire le spectacle des villes. Les interventions artistiques en milieu urbain remettent en question les catégories usuelles de l’art et du spectateur, mais aussi celles de l’action culturelle, de l’interaction et de la communauté. Partant de l’hypothèse générale que les « oeuvres d’art » – qui ne sont pas nécessairement des « objets » – sont des configurations signifiantes, on examine les discours critiques et esthétiques qui concourent à la définition du genre, puis les éléments clés du champ de l’intervention artistique : la revitalisation urbaine, les politiques culturelles, les réseaux artistiques, les nouveaux espaces publics et les formes de participation. L’article vise à démontrer que les artistes qui pratiquent l’intervention urbaine doivent directement faire face à la difficulté de penser le nouvel espace public et de le concrétiser.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.009 |
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".