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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Enrique Mallén, Luís Meneses

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. Résumé 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. Mots-clés: 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Studies / Le champ numériqueSame topicCategorization, perception, and languageFrench-language works237,207