MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606970080 · doi:10.21083/nrsc.v0i10.3709

L’artiste universitaire, l’artiste théoricien : vers un paradigme intellectuel et artistique de recherche-création

2017· article· fr· W2606970080 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pierre-Luc Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelle Revue Synergies Canada · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RésuméÀ partir de l’exemple fourni par les textes théoriques sur l’art visuel publiés par le peintre russe Wassily Kandinsky, je m’intéresse, dans cet article, à la méthodologie transdisciplinaire de la recherche-création ; en dépassant la simple réflexion d’un artiste sur son propre travail, la recherche-création réfute les idées reçues — fausses et inexactes — selon lesquelles la création est une forme de recherche et qu’un créateur en contexte universitaire est, nécessairement, un chercheur. Puisant à même le savoir produit par toutes les formes de création artistique et par les multiples domaines de la recherche que sont les études littéraires, l’histoire de l’art, la philosophie, etc., la recherche-création telle que pratiquée par Wassily Kandinsky, avant la lettre, montre bien que la théorie artistique dépendante d’une pratique créatrice peut, en explorant les langages de l’art et de la réflexion « savante », proposer des manières stimulantes d’être artiste théoricien, à l’université — et ainsi de faire de la recherche-création. AbstractStarting from Wassily Kansindsky’s theories of visual arts, I discuss, in this paper, the transdisciplinary methodology of research-creation; while exceeding the artist’s naïve reflection upon their own work, research-creation refutes the false and inexact common preconceptions that artistic creation is equivalent to academic research and that a practitioner working at the university is automatically a researcher. Drawing from all creative forms and expressions, and from academic fields such as literature studies, art history, philosophy, etc., research-creation as practised by Wassily Kandinsky—before the concept was actually coined—shows that a theory of art depending on the theorist’s practice of said art can, while exploring art’s and academia’s different languages, suggest stimulating ways of being an artist and a theoretician at the university—hence, practising research-creation.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.065
Scholarly communication0.0210.021
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelle Revue Synergies CanadaSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207