Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis le début du millénaire, les institutions muséales se lancent dans des entreprises controversées de reconstitutions d’oeuvres performatives des années 60 et 70. Le phénomène est paradoxal car le reenactment , associé aux modes de transmission oraux, est souvent considéré comme une voie alternative à la culture de l’image, de l’archive et du musée. À partir de la rétrospective Marina Abramovi ć . The Artist Is Present présentée au Museum of Modern Art de New York en 2010, ce texte démontre les liens étroits qui se tissent entre le reenactment et l’image. Les photographies historiques sont interprétées en tant que scripts permettant de réactualiser les performances passées. Conçus pour la caméra, les reenactments engendrent des phénomènes de remédiation des images, selon des chaînes complexes d’opérations intermédiales. Enfin, dans le contexte d’une mutation institutionnelle de la performance, l’image devient l’instrument de l’exercice de l’autorité de l’artiste, parce que, en tant que fixation d’une oeuvre éphémère, elle permet la protection du copyright .
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".