Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract | What is the relationship between visual images and the social imaginary? The following article argues that the social imaginary is built on aesthetics and that this fact creates conditions of perception belonging not to art but to the social realm. It also means that it is possible, therefore, to construct a triadic model of social perception, according to whether an empirical fact or an imagined event dominates in any given phenomenon. How then is visual perception created through the production of the imaginary? If an imaginary is a state of aesthetic cognition then there is an epistemic relationship of continuity between the visual image and the construction of the social imaginary which precedes all representation.Résumé | Quelle est la relation entre les images visuelles et l’imaginaire social? Cet article soutient que l’imaginaire social repose sur l’esthétique et que cela crée des conditions de perception appartenant non pas à l’art, mais à la sphère sociale. Cela signifie aussi qu’il est possible de construire un modèle tripartite de la perception sociale selon qu’un fait empirique ou un événement imaginé domine dans un phénomène donné. Comment la perception visuelle est-elle donc créée en fonction de la production de l’imaginaire social? Si l’imaginaire est un état de connaissance esthétique, il existe une relation épistémique de continuité entre l’image visuelle et la construction de l’imaginaire social qui précède la représentation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".