Un herbier d’images : la collection de reproductions photographiques rassemblées par Bourdelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quel intérêt un artiste qui travaille le volume peut-il trouver dans une reproduction plane, en deux dimensions ? Cette étude vise ainsi à interroger le rôle de la reproduction photographique dans l’univers créatif du sculpteur Bourdelle. Son importante collection, réparties en 2 500 cartes postales, 1 300 reproductions éparses, à laquelle on doit adjoindre les reproductions contenues dans les 670 ouvrages de sa bibliothèques et les images rassemblées dans ses dossiers d’archives, permet de mettre en lumière quatre registres différenciés d’utilisation. Ainsi, sa collection de cartes postales offre l’image dilettante d’un monde en miniature ; les reproductions éparses constituaient son musée de poche dans lequel il pouvait glaner des outils de travail pour exercer sa main ; dans sa bibliothèque, lieu de l’étude et de l’érudition, étaient rassemblés ses pairs ; enfin, ses dossiers d’archives visaient à garder la mémoire intime de son œuvre et de sa vie.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".