Construction identitaire au sein des laboratoires de création collective audiovisuelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, j’expose l’apparition au Quebec, vers la fin des annees 1990, d’une communaute d’artistes audiovisuels du nom de Kino. Au sein de ce regroupement a emerge le concept du laboratoire de creation collective audiovisuelle qui permet a des createurs de se rassembler afin de creer collectivement des courts metrages sur une periode limitee. Un laboratoire est un espace ephemere qui offre aux individus la possibilite de construire leur identite a travers les films qu’ils y produisent. Dans cet article, j’analyse ces laboratoires de creation collective audiovisuelle tout en temoignant de mon experience de creation au sein d’un laboratoire qui a eu lieu a Cuba en 2011. This article discusses my own experience as a member of Kino, a community of audiovisual artists, founded in Quebec in the late 1990s. Collective creation laboratories were set up within this community. They allow artists to come together and create short films during a limited period of time. In this article, I ague that these laboratories are meeting spaces that allow individuals to construct their identity through the films they produce. I analyze those creative spaces and discuss my involvement in a laboratory workshop that took place in Cuba in 2011.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".