La vie sociale des œuvres d'art dans les espaces publics : études des cas montréalais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recherche exploratoire et inductive porte sur les publics des oeuvres d’art dans les \nespaces publics; des publics qui ont rarement été étudiés de manière empirique. Plus \nprécisément, cette étude vise la description des modes d’interaction des publics avec les \nmonuments et les oeuvres d’art public. Pour développer de nouvelles perspectives sur ces \nobjets artistiques qui se trouvent dans des parcs, des places et des squares, l’auteur s’appuie \nsur la définition que fait la sociologie urbaine des espaces publics. Considérés non pas comme \ndes espaces de discours mais comme des environnements concrets, ils sont des lieux de \nsociabilité publique, où des inconnus sont en situation d’interaction et entretiennent des liens \nténus et éphémères. Inspirée par le documentaire de Wililam H. Whyte The Social Life of Small \nUrban Spaces, l’observation filmée est employée comme méthode de collecte de données, ce \nqui permet une analyse fine des interactions que les publics ont avec les oeuvres montréalaises \nainsi documentées. À travers quatre études de cas est analysée la vie sociale de huit oeuvres \nqui sont installées dans les places publiques du Quartier international de Montréal, au square \nSaint-Louis, au parc du Mont-Royal et sur l’île Sainte-Hélène; des rassemblements uniques \ncomme Occupons Montréal, le tam-tam et le Pikinc Électronik sont au passage abordés. Le \npoint de vue sur la vie sociale des oeuvres dans les espaces publics se transforme au fil des \nétudes de cas : alors qu’il est d’abord question des usages que font les publics de ces objets \nd’art, l’analyse porte de plus en plus sur les interactions entre publics et oeuvres. À partir du \nregistre des interactions entre inconnus formulé par Lyn H. Lofland, la discussion qui conclut \ncette thèse propose, au regard des résultats de cette enquête, cinq principes pour décrire les \ninteractions entre publics et oeuvres, ce qui permet d’ouvrir une réflexion sur la portée de ces \ninteractions dans notre expérience de la ville. This exploratory, inductive research is focused on publics for artworks in public spaces – publics \nthat have rarely been the subject of empirical study. More specifically, this study aims to \ndescribe the ways in which publics interact with monuments and works of public art. To develop \nnew perspectives on these art objects that are found in parks and squares, the author adopts \nthe definition of public spaces used in urban sociology. In this definition, public spaces are seen \nnot as spaces of discourse but as concrete environments, sites of public sociability in which \nstrangers are in a situation of interaction and maintain tenuous, ephemeral links. Following the \nmethod used by William H. Whyte in his documentary The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, \nfilmed observation was employed for data collection, making it possible to undertake a detailed \nanalysis of the interactions documented between publics and the chosen Montréal artworks. \nThrough four case studies, the social life of eight artworks installed in the public squares of the \nQuartier international de Montréal, Saint-Louis Square, Mount Royal Park, and St. Helen’s \nIsland is analyzed; unique gatherings such as Occupons Montréal, the tam-tam, and the Piknic \nÉlectronik are also addressed. The point of view on the social life of artworks in public spaces is \ntransformed as the case studies proceed: at first, the focus is on the uses made by publics of \nthese art objects, but the analysis shifts gradually to interactions between publics and artworks. \nUsing as a basis the register of interactions among strangers formulated by Lyn H. Lofland, the \ndiscussion that concludes the dissertation proposes, given the results of the research, five \nprinciples to describe interactions between publics and artwork, thus opening to a reflection on \nthe effect of these interactions on our experience of the city.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.001 |
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.
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".