MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775014008 · doi:10.7202/1048865ar

Une ontologie ou une esthétique numérique ?

2017· article· fr· W2775014008 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucie Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicVisual Culture and Art Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

Afin de mettre au jour l’être-image ou le caractère relationnel des images argentique et numérique, l’auteure reproblématise un ensemble de réflexions proposées par André Bazin (sur l’ontologie) et Roland Barthes (à propos du punctum). Elle suppose que les images numériques ont contribué au dévoilement de la-réalité-des-images. Ayant trait à la perception et à la pensée, les images numériques, de même que les images argentiques, ne manquent pas d’être soumises à des ouvragements et à des transformations. Perception, pensée, ouvragement et transformation satisfont la-réalité-des-images ou participent de leur ontologie.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: french · design weight: 1554.47 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Philosophical essay on the ontology and aesthetics of digital versus analogue images; the object is image theory.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The article develops a theory of photographic and digital images rather than studying research.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Aesthetic/ontological essay on digital and silver-based images; art theory, not research practice.

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)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.024
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSens publicSame topicVisual Culture and Art TheoryFrench-language works237,207