MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777666170 · doi:10.4000/allemagne.416

Lieux berlinois à l’abandon. L’urbex comme pratique performative de la mémoire

2016· article· fr· W2777666170 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Devirieux

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d’Allemagne et des pays de langue allemande · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Exile Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’exploration urbaine est une pratique alternative, mi-sportive, mi-artistique, qui consiste à s’infiltrer dans des endroits abandonnés. L’objectif de beaucoup d’explorateurs urbains est de photographier ces endroits afin de constituer les archives parallèles d’un patrimoine qui, autrement, sombrerait dans l’oubli. Dans son livre Abandoned Berlin / Verlassene Orte, paru en 2015, le photographe et explorateur urbain Ciarán Fahey dévoile des images surprenantes de plusieurs endroits, dans et en pourtour de Berlin, qui jouèrent un rôle sous le régime nazi : village olympique des Jeux de 1936, boulangerie d’un camp de concentration, cliniques médicales où eurent lieu des crimes d’euthanasie, etc. Soumis au passage du temps qui se manifeste dans la dégradation comme dans l’envahissement par la végétation, par exemple, ces endroits figurent dans le paysage urbain comme les stigmates invisibles du passé traumatique de l’Allemagne. Cet article se penche sur la question du traitement réservé à ces endroits controversés et de la dimension poétique qu’inspirent les ruines à l’abandon. L’auteur tente de concevoir l’exploration urbaine comme une pratique contemporaine et performative de la mémoire dont l’aspect marginal renouvelle le rapport au passé.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d’Allemagne et des pays de langue allemandeSame topicMigration and Exile StudiesFrench-language works237,207