Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le comité éditorial d’ Arborescences tient à remercier chaleureusement Anthony J. Wall, qui a bien voulu présenter, dans le présent essai, la version écrite et remaniée d’une conférence qu’il a donnée au Département d’études françaises de l’Université de Toronto en mars dernier. L’essai d’Anthony J. Wall se donne à lire comme une agréable et savante exploration de l’oeuvre picturale d’Hubert Robert, une déambulation gracieusement philosophique à travers quelques-unes des nombreuses toiles et représentations qui ont fait la renommée de ce peintre des Lumières. En mettant à profit la notion bakhtinienne de chronotope, le critique s’applique à souligner la puissance des temps et des espaces rendus visibles par l’oeuvre de Robert ; il cherche à rendre compte de « la capacité de ses paysages peints à se transformer en véritables regards philosophiques sur le passage du temps dans l’espace ».
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".