MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947281923 · doi:10.4000/critiquedart.46160

Françoise Sullivan : l’artiste en présence

2019· article· fr· W2947281923 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ariane De Blois

Bibliographic record

VenueCritique d’art · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le nom de Franoise Sullivan est peut-tre encore mconnu l'extrieur du Canada, pourtant, le travail riche et polymorphe de cette artiste, qui est un vritable monument -encore bien vivant -de l'histoire de l'art canadien, mrite une attention particulire bien au-del des frontires du pays qui l'a vue natre. Par la nature avant-gardiste de sa pratique multidisciplinaire, celle-ci a marqu de manire significative autant le champ des arts visuels que celui de la danse, et ce, tant dans leur affirmation moderne que contemporaine. Danseuse, chorgraphe, performeuse, peintre, sculpteure, artiste conceptuelle, pote et auteure, Franoise Sullivan, connue pour tre l'une des signataires du manifeste du Refus global (1948), est une artiste qui volue toujours l o l'on ne l'attend pas, djouant inlassablement travers ses diffrentes trajectoires 1 la facilit du faire. Son travail, largement diffus tout au long de sa carrire, connat un engouement singulier depuis la dernire dcennie alors que plus d'une dizaine d'expositions et des publications lui ont t consacres. L'actualit rcente des deux catalogues publis par la Galerie de l'UQAM et le Muse d'art contemporain de Montral nous invite dmontrer en quoi le travail protiforme de l'artiste et son refus constant de se rsoudre une assignation quelconque renversent la doxa patriarcale qui a traditionnellement situ le fminin hors du champ de l'art.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.017

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritique d’artSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207