L’imprévisible à l’œuvre : les aléas du processus de création
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé :Si « la création se nourrit des aléas, des forces non prévues » (Pierre Ouellet), cet article examine le processus créateur d’une poète et d’une artiste canadiennes contemporaines à partir d’événements imprévus qui renouvellent leurs pratiques artistiques. Ainsi, nous analysons l’imprévu d’un prix littéraire comme surprise favorable qui active des thèmes nouveaux dans l’œuvre de la poète métisse de Winnipeg, Katherena Vermette ; et l’expérience de la perte d’une œuvre qui est transformée positivement dans la pratique de l’artiste de la broderie et des textiles du Nouveau-Brunswick, Anna Torma. À travers ces exemples, nous montrons que l’impact de l’imprévu sur les pratiques, les techniques et les imaginaires de Vermette et de Torma affirment à la fois le caractère imprévisible et inachevé de l’acte créateur, et l’ouverture à des réflexions critiques novatrices sur l’invention et l’interprétation des œuvres. AbstractAs Pierre Ouellet proposes, “creation is bolstered by chance, by unexpected forces”. This article examines the creative processes of a contemporary Canadian poet and of a textile artist by considering unanticipated events that renew their artistic practices. We analyze the unpredictable announcement of a literary prize as a favourable surprise that acts as an impetus for new themes in the work of Winnipeg poet Katherena Vermette. We also analyze the way New Brunswick artist Anna Torma transforms the distressing loss of an artwork in a positive way. Through these two examples, we demonstrate that the impact of the unexpected on the practices, the techniques, and the imaginations of Vermette and Torma affirm both the incomplete and unpredictable nature of the creative act itself, and the value of diverse critical approaches in understanding the creation and interpretation of artistic and literary works.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".