MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Les données massives en art contemporain : le cas d’ArtFacts.Net

2018· article· fr· W2909388728 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Bellavance, Nathalie Casemajor, Jonathan Roberge, Guillaume Sirois, Lyne Nantel

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication et organisation · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose une étude de la plateforme ArtFacts.Net – un système de classement et de hiérarchisation des artistes de la scène mondiale de l’art contemporain – en relation aux enjeux de visibilité en ligne et de gestion des données massives dans ce monde de l’art. L’étude s’appuie sur une analyse du dispositif et du discours programmatique de ce site, ainsi que sur des entretiens auprès d’informateurs-clés du monde de l’art contemporain montréalais.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication et organisationSame topicArt History and Market AnalysisFrench-language works237,207