Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprètes auprès de la compagnie d’Odile Duboc pendant quinze ans, Stéfany Ganachaud, Françoise Rognerud et Bruno Danjoux ont épousé l’esthétique de la chorégraphe en traversant la quasi-totalité de son œuvre. Cette longue collaboration n’aura pas seulement façonné leur mouvement ; dans un phénomène d’imprégnation où la qualité du geste est indissociable d’une certaine façon d’être, l’art et la personne de la chorégraphe auront laissé une trace profonde chez les trois artistes. Suivant le souhait d’Odile Duboc, la diffusion de son œuvre prend fin avec son départ. L’entretien prend appui sur les notions fondatrices de la danse d’Odile Duboc pour venir interroger la mémoire sensorielle et corporelle de trois interprètes. Questionner ainsi ce qui résiste, ce qui résonne dans leur corporéités aujourd'hui ; identifier si et de quelles façons l’absence a modifié la mémoire d’une œuvre dans laquelle il et elles se sont autant investi.e.s.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".