Bibliographic record
Abstract
En partant de l’installation vidéo Manifesto de l’artiste allemand Julian Rosefeldt, exposée en 2016 à Berlin, cet article cherche à situer le manifeste dans son double emploi : en tant que matériau artistique et en tant qu’objet de recherche. Les études récentes, surtout franco- et germanophones, témoignent d’une volonté d’enrichir les corpus de manifestes produits depuis la seconde moitié du xxe siècle dans les domaines des arts plastiques, de la littérature, de la danse, du cinéma, voire des nouveaux médias. Ce faisant, elles proposent des ouvertures épistémologiques parfois subjectives, tout en réitérant les débats plus anciens, dominés par les études littéraires, sur les critères de définition. Demeurée longtemps absente de ces débats, l’histoire de l’art pourrait permettre de dépasser ces discours de légitimation du manifeste comme objet d’étude, afin de nourrir le dialogue pluridisciplinaire par l’analyse de ses enjeux plastiques et historiques au sein d’une histoire sociale plus vaste.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".