MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2681201130 · doi:10.71781/9427

La position historique des artistes issus de l'immigration : le cas de Leopold Plotek

2016· dissertation· fr· W2681201130 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Filipa Esteves

Bibliographic record

VenuePapyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leopold Plotek est un artiste montréalais, né en Russie, qui consacre sa carrière artistique à la peinture depuis cinquante ans. Contrairement à l’intérêt que lui manifeste le milieu des arts visuels, l’histoire de l’art n’a pas encore témoigné de son importance. La description de sa carrière depuis les années 1970 jusqu’à aujourd’hui, soit de ses peintures ainsi que des expositions et des écrits qui s’y rapportent, comble en partie cette lacune. Une perspective interculturelle permet de présenter Plotek comme artiste issu de l’immigration et comme anglophone au Québec ainsi que d’identifier des critères fondés sur l’identité culturelle et linguistique, qui expliquent en partie son absence de l’histoire de l’art, particulièrement de l’art contemporain. D’une part, cette étude au sujet de son œuvre fournit un nombre significatif de renseignements factuels : inventaire des peintures, des expositions, des collections, des catalogues ainsi que des articles de revues et de journaux. D’autre part, elle démontre que l’étude des relations interculturelles aide à démystifier la croyance selon laquelle l’histoire de l’art retient les artistes principalement en fonction de la qualité de leurs œuvres.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal)Same topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207