Adhérer ou résister : la relation ambivalente des artistes aux musées
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, contemporary artists are receiving invitations from museums; and not simply to present works produced elsewhere, but to carry out projects on site designed specifically for the museum. In addition to commissions for conventional in situ installation projects, of the type Daniel Buren has conducted for nearly fifty years, numerous invitations call on artists to introduce a fresh perspective on collections, through presentations that diverge distinctly from typical museum practices. Different approaches can be observed—often revealing a very critical perspective on the museum institution—their common feature being that they are presented as an alternative to the practices of museum professionals, while resulting from a negotiation with them. The carte blanche thus represents a new form of conjoint practice— a duel expressivity—directly linking contemporary creation to its institutionalization, where the relationship between the parties concerned is neither completely visible nor completely equitable.
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 | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".