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 luxembourgeoisGëlle 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 artistiqueLady Rosa of Luxembourgde 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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.

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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