Quand les discours s’entrecroisent : « Sauvons le Montmartre bruxellois ! »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 2003, la dernière cité d’artistes bruxelloise, les Ateliers Mommen, était menacée par des promoteurs immobiliers. Cette affaire reçut une grande attention de la presse qui soutint véritablement les occupants. Comment expliquer un tel appui à des victimes de spéculation, comme il y en a d’autres ? Et pourquoi, malgré de nombreux arguments communs, les médias ne diffusèrent-ils pas les revendications des artistes autour de leurs droits ? L’article démontre, par l’analyse des discours de la presse et des artistes, que la sauvegarde des ateliers dépendit de leur pouvoir évocateur, renvoyant au mythe de l’artiste bohème. Les médias choisirent un « monde de justifications » basé sur « l’inspiration », qu’ils opposèrent au « monde marchand » des promoteurs (Boltanski et Thévenot, 1991). Cette grille de lecture ne laissa pas de place aux justifications civiques propres à la menace immobilière (déstructuration du tissu urbain) et aux droits des artistes (conditions de travail adaptées).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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; 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".