Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au vu de la mode actuelle des Arts Premiers, Serge Gruzinski se demande si on ne neglige pas les formes d'expression intermediaires que sont les arts metis dont les creations n'ont quere attire l'attention des historiens de l'art. Il analyse les peintures mexicaines d'un codex de 1570 qui montre la juxtaposition des techiniques europeennes et precolombiennes d l'ecriture, le traitement particulier de la polychromie etc. L'art indigene a cree ainsi des formes nouvelles en se metissant, images qui se perpetuent de nos jours (graffits, par exemple). Ces arts metis ont connu au XVI siecle, en Europe, une vogue qui fut passagere mais qui nous invite neanmoins a sortir de notre vision eurocentree d'un monde en realite en internaction depuis longtemps avec l'Europe. Ils nous ablogen a penser le monde en termes de connexions, a repenser les differences. Un musee imaginaire des arts metis (MAM) refleterait ces flux, ces echanges, ces relations. Cette reciprocite d'enrichissements nous pousserait a remplacer les memoires du monde, a travers les grandes cultures urbaines de la planete. les flux qui brassent societes et cultures. La redecouverte et la reconnaissance des arts metis changerait notre vision de l'alterite en cassant les exotismes figes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".