MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990704898 · doi:10.4000/books.inha.7923

L’Image railleuse

2019· book· fr· W2990704898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications de l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art eBooks · 2019
Typebook
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La fonction critique des images s’incarne de manière privilégiée dans la satire. Si la satire s’est constituée en genre littéraire dès l’Antiquité, avant de gagner les beaux-arts et les arts graphiques à l’âge classique, ce sont les médias modernes – édition, presse, expositions, télévision, internet – qui, en élargissant progressivement sa sphère d’influence, ont renouvelé ses formes et ses objectifs tout en augmentant leur efficacité. Autorisant une diffusion planétaire et presque instantanée des images satiriques, internet et les technologies numériques n’ont pas seulement transformé la matérialité et les moyens d’action de cette imagerie et leurs effets sociopolitiques, ils ont aussi affecté les formes de la recherche sur le satirique en donnant accès de plus en plus rapidement à des corpus extrêmement vastes. La satire est aujourd’hui partout, sans qu’aucun acteur ni canal de diffusion ne puisse prétendre en contrôler ses usages généralisés ni son effectivité. Cette publication regroupe les actes du colloque qui s’est tenu du 25 au 27 juin 2015 à l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art, à Paris, organisé par l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art, l’université du Québec à Montréal et le LARHRA-UMR 5190 du CNRS, avec le soutien de l’Agence universitaire de la Francophonie et le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications de l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art eBooksSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207