MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338242147 · doi:10.7202/1034157ar

La science des projections

2015· article· fr· W2338242147 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pauline Noblecourt

Bibliographic record

VenueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comment la projection, entendue à la fois comme outil de vulgarisation scientifique et comme dispositif de divertissement, a-t-elle été réinvestie, et réinventée, par le théâtre du 19e siècle ? Cet article analyse le Catalogue des appareils employés pour la production des phénomènes physiques au théâtre (1877) de Duboscq : la variété des dispositifs de projection destinés à la scène qui y sont proposés éclaire à la fois les transferts techniques entre le champ de la recherche scientifique et celui du spectacle vivant, et les réinventions esthétiques qu’a permis au théâtre l’adoption de la projection.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.062
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniquesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207