Critique, texte et art contemporain. Repenser l’héritage de Marshall McLuhan aujourd’hui
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé | À l’ère d’Internet, quelle signification donner encore à l’héritage culturel de Marshall McLuhan? Si la question a inspiré des penseurs français (Michel Serres, Jean Baudrillard, Régis Debray) et canadiens (Derrick de Kerckhove, Pierre Lévy), nous y revenons sous un nouvel angle, en lien avec les arts plastiques contemporains. Par l’exploration de trois expositions : Vision trouble d’Annie Briard, Our Land. Contemporary Art from the Arctic et Superimposition: Sculpture and Image, qui se sont déroulées à Saint-Boniface et à Winnipeg, au Manitoba en 2016-2017, nous soulignons la pertinence actuelle des notions d’expérience de la perception, de mosaïque et de village global de McLuhan. Après tout, quels liens novateurs s’établissent entre l’art, les nouveaux médias et la pensée, à partir de Marshall McLuhan aujourd’hui ?Abstract | Nowadays, in our interconnected virtual world, how can we rethink Marshall McLuhan’s cultural heritage? If the issue has already inspired a number of thinkers in France (Michel Serres, Jean Baudrillard, Régis Debray) and in Canada (Derrick de Kerckhove, Pierre Lévy), this essay approaches the question under new light, in relation to contemporary visual arts. By studying three exhibitions: Vision trouble d’Annie Briard, Our Land. Contemporary Art from the Arctic and Superimposition: Sculpture and Image opened in Saint-Boniface and Winnipeg, Manitoba (2016-17), it outlines the current relevance of McLuhan’s concepts, such as: the sensory experience, the mosaic and the global village. After all, how do visual arts, new media and critical thinking contribute to redefining Marshall McLuhan’s theories today?
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".