Oublier la Renaissance, désapprendre l’humanisme : Le premier Baroque entre exploitation des acquis et table rase imaginaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si l’histoire de l’art situe, traditionnellement, une coupure nette entre le maniérisme tardif, encore sous l’emprise de la Renaissance et de l’humanisme, et la révolution qui donna naissance au baroque, les historiens de l’art s’étant penchés sur la question ne sont pas dupes : Caravage, tout en revendiquant sa différence et la nouveauté éclatante de son art, a appris énormément des œuvres qu’il découvre d’abord en Lombardie, puis à Rome. La tension entre continuité et rupture, entre ce qui reste et ce qui change, a toujours été un des thèmes majeurs sur lesquels devaient se prononcer les historiens de l’art. Cet article a comme objectif de réviser le récit de l’apparition du Baroque en évitant à la fois le mythe de la table rase et la méprise (et le mépris) du déjà-vu ; en expliquant comment Caravage, et d’autres après lui – particulièrement Jusepe de Ribera – ont cherché à garder vivant le souvenir de certains acquis importants de l’art des prédécesseurs tout en oubliant activement des normes, des règles et des idéaux.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".