Le Chantier 1810 du Musée National des Arts et Traditions Populaires (1942-1946) : un conservatoire des techniques et de leurs gestes ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment décrire les gestes techniques pour la préservation du Patrimoine, ou pour leur valorisation et leur transmission? Comment même expliquer les gestes techniques? Et avec quels moyens intellectuels? L'étude des monographies des entreprises artisanales françaises réalisées dans le cadre du « projet intellectuel 1810 » mené par l'équipe du Musée National des Arts et Traditions Populaires (MNATP) entre 1940 et 1946 nous donne une réponse historique à la question. La méthode de la monographie suivie des collectes-enquêtes destinées à enrichir le nouveau musée semble alors être la plus adaptée à l'étude de la culture matérielle et surtout des techniques. Le but de cet article est d'analyser les contributions et les limites de cette méthode ethnographique à visée muséologique.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".