Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’un regard anthropologique, ce texte propose d’interroger la tendance qui consiste à se déclarer « artiste chercheur(e) » ou « chercheur(e) artiste », cette désignation récurrente construisant une indistinction troublante entre deux secteurs d’activités, celui de la recherche et celui de l’art, et plus largement entre des couples antinomiques comme théorie et pratique ou pensée et action. Cette double appartenance pose la question de la « place » (en termes de position sociale) et du « trouble » occasionné par le brouillage possible des statuts, des valeurs et des systèmes de reconnaissance attachés aux « mondes » de l’art et de la recherche. À partir d’études de cas centrées sur le contexte français contemporain, ce propos examine les possibilités de (et les résistances à) penser ensemble activités artistiques et activités de recherche en France, alors que cette dialogique semble en partie mise en œuvre par la recherche-création au Québec.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".