Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’effondrement des limites entre les genres artistiques entraîne celui des limites qui séparent l’art de la vie. Poser l’autonomie de l’art devient alors problématique : un tel énoncé suppose en effet l’indépendance de l’art vis-à-vis du réel, de tout ce qui lui est extrinsèque et n’obéit pas à ses règles propres. D’où l’intérêt d’une analyse de la conception adornienne de l’autonomie de l’art, conception particulièrement riche et féconde pour penser le rapport de l’art au réel, dans la mesure où le souci de sauvegarder l’autonomie de l’art — la distance qui la sépare du réel et de la vie — tout en conservant son aspect social y est constant. Sa fonction sociale étant paradoxalement une absence de fonction, c’est en se différenciant du réel que les oeuvres expriment, de manière négative, la promesse d’un monde autre.AbstractThe collapse of boundaries between artistic genres leads to the collapse of the boundaries that separate art from life. Stating the autonomy of art thus becomes problematic: such a statement presupposes the independence of art vis-à-vis the “real”, vis-à-vis all that is extraneous and does not obey its own rules. Hence the interest of an analysis of Adorno's conception of the autonomy of art, particularly rich and fruitful to think the relation of art to reality in its desire to safeguard the autonomy of art – the distance that separates it from the “real” and from life – while retaining its social aspect. Its social function being paradoxically a lack of function, it is in differentiating themselves from the “real” that the works express, in a negative way, the promise of another world.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.008 |
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".