MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901988179 · doi:10.4000/critiquedart.29354

Publishing and Art Criticism

2018· article· fr· W2901988179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sylvie Mokhtari, Jean-Marc Poinsot

Bibliographic record

VenueCritique d’art · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingArt criticismContemporary artCriticismChristian ministryPublic artArt historyArtMedia studiesSociologyLibrary scienceVisual artsPolitical sciencePerformance artLawComputer scienceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1991, the Archives de la critique d’art brought together various publishersand the contemporary art public for a symposium on art publishing held in Rennes. Backed by the Ministry of Culture, publishers and art critics, the journal Critique d’art duly launched its first issue in May 1993, combining a demanding critical approach with practical information, aimed at making it easier to distribute books about contemporary art, using the Quebec bulletin Artexte as one model among others. Jean...

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0330.067
Scholarly communication0.0360.014
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritique d’artSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207