Les objets en peinture : un exemple d’interobjectivité « matrimoniale »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la peinture figurative, les objets perdent leur caractère de singularité pour assumer entre eux des relations de solidarité et de cohérence isotopique interobjective. L’analyse du diptyque de G. Metsu, Homme en train d’écrire une lettre et Dame en train de lire une lettre (1664), confirme cette hypothèse : les objets qui meublent les deux scènes concourent à produire un seul effet de sens. Dans le tableau consacré à la figure masculine, l’organisation des relations plastiques entre objets permet de déchiffrer le contenu de la lettre ; dans l’autre tableau, les objets servent à traduire les effets passionnels produits sur la jeune femme par l’arrivée de la lettre de son bien-aimé. Chaque objet de ce diptyque, même ceux de petite taille comme le dé, est renforcé par la mise en scène d’autres objets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".