MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130192258 · doi:10.7202/1027436ar

Le verbal et l’iconique

2014· article· fr· W2130192258 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marion Colas-Blaise

Bibliographic record

VenueArborescences Revue d études françaises · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il s’agit, dans cet article, de réinterroger l’opposition chère à Barthes entre la fonction d’ancrage et la fonction de relais du texte verbal dans un ensemble multimédial et plurisémiotique. Nous nous proposons ainsi, dans un premier temps, d’étudier les contraintes que le genre du monument aux morts fait peser sur l’entrejeu des inscriptions verbales sur le socle du monument luxembourgeois Gëlle Fra (« femme en or ») (fonction de relais) et de la sculpture allégorique qui l’orne à son sommet. Dans un deuxième temps, nous visons à montrer comment les fonctions de relais et d’ancrage du verbal, à condition d’être réaménagées, permettent de rendre compte de la multiplicité des significations de l’installation artistique Lady Rosa of Luxembourg de Sanja Iveković qui, sur le mode de la subversion, réénonce le monument aux morts dans un lieu public. Dans un troisième temps, il importe de s’interroger sur le rôle joué par les documents verbo-visuels qui, au moment de la mise en exposition de l’installation au musée, témoignent de la réception de celle-ci par le public. Établissant un parallèle entre la mise en exposition et l’« exécution » d’une oeuvre allographique, nous montrons que la fonction de relais, dûment repensée, permet de rendre compte du devenir (autre) de l’installation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArborescences Revue d études françaisesSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207