MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298718905 · doi:10.4000/insitu.12743

Mouler, tirer, modifier, mouler à nouveau. Rodin et le moulage

2016· article· fr· W2298718905 on OpenAlexaff
François Blanchetière

Bibliographic record

VenueIn Situ · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le contexte de l’atelier d’un artiste, le terme de moulage doit être réservé à la désignation de l’opération qui consiste à fabriquer un moule ; l’objet que l’on en tire est une épreuve, étape ou résultat final dans le processus de création d’une œuvre. Partant des pratiques de moulage et de tirage d’épreuve traditionnellement utilisées en sculpture, Rodin a développé, avec l’aide de ses mouleurs, des usages nouveaux, faisant preuve d’une grande liberté (multiplication des exemplaires et des variantes, changement de matériau, assemblage d’épreuves diverses…).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIn SituSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207