MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994668618 · doi:10.16995/dscn.320

Adjoined Conceptual Domains in the Bilingual Poetry of Pablo Picasso

2019· article· en· W2994668618 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Studies / Le champ numérique · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPICASSOPoetryArtHumanitiesRealization (probability)LiteratureLinguisticsPhilosophyArt historyPaintingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Picasso started writing poems in April, 1935 during a period of personal crisis. This shift to literature is predicated on an assumed irreducible conflict between new verbal expressions and his established visual composition. Picasso’s texts provide a window into the artist’s mind that is separate from his own artistic creations —which makes them extremely relevant. This paper investigates two aspects of Picasso’s poetry. First, how Picasso used subtle differences between the lexical realization of concepts in French and Spanish: the two languages he used to compose his poems. And Second, how he explored the potential overlap between semantic categories for concepts associated with co-occurring words. When these linguistic phenomena are examined carefully, it becomes clear that the lexical combinations that Picasso implemented in his poems were far from arbitrary. <strong>Résumé</strong> Picasso a commencé à écrire des poèmes en avril 1935, pendant une période de crise personnelle. Ce passage vers la littérature se fonde sur le conflit irréductible supposé entre de nouvelles expressions verbales et sa composition visuelle établie. Les textes de Picasso nous donnent un aperçu de ce qui se passe dans la tête de l’artiste qui est séparé de ses propres créations artistiques – ce qui rend ces textes extrêmement pertinents. Cet article enquête sur deux aspects de la poésie de Picasso. Premièrement, la manière dont Picasso a employé des différences subtiles entre la réalisation lexicale de concepts en français et en espagnol, les deux langues dans lesquelles il a écrit ses poèmes. Deuxièmement, la manière dont il a exploré le chevauchement potentiel entre des catégories sémantiques pour des concepts associés aux mots coexistants. Après un examen approfondi de ces phénomènes linguistiques, il s’est avéré clair que les combinaisons lexicales avec lesquelles Picasso a composé ses poèmes étaient loin d’être arbitraires. <strong>Mots-clés:</strong> Picasso; bilingue; la poésie; domaines conceptuelsl; catégories sémantiques

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.285 · 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