Accord réciproque. Pierce, Kandinsky et le potentiel dynamique du qualisigne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une des conceptions-clefs de la sémiotique peircienne est la structure relationnelle de la représentation – relation triadique entre representamen, objet, et interprétant et entre icône, indice et symbole. Un domaine privilégié pour l’étudier est fourni par l’art abstrait moderne : Wassily Kandinsky (1866- 1944), par exemple, contemporain de Peirce (1839-1914) et sémioticien sans le savoir, comme artiste autant que comme théoricien de l’esthétique, a essayé de cerner les potentialités de la qualité pure. Cet article essayera de montrer comment la sémiotique peircienne, surtout dans le domaine de la théorie de l’iconicité, nous aide à mieux comprendre le potentiel dynamique des formes abstraites dans la peinture de Kandinsky, et de montrer comment sa théorie et sa pratique portent la marque des processus sémiotiques fondamentaux théorisés par Peirce.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".