Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment la lecture de L’Œuvre de l’art aide-t-elle à comprendre le statut de l’objet patrimonial ? Un retour sur l’emprunt de l’opposition entre autographie et allographie montre sa fécondité pour une définition du patrimoine. Certaines caractéristiques communes aux œuvres allographiques et au patrimoine immatériel suscitent trois questions : légitimité du transfert de l’approche de l’œuvre à l’objet patrimonial ; pertinence de l’emprunt de la distinction entre autographie et allographie ; apport de la démarche ontologique de Genette à l’étude de l’objet patrimonial. Similitudes et différences sont ainsi mises en lumière, notamment entre fonction artistique et patrimonialisation. La démarche de Genette aide ainsi à faire apparaître la spécificité des deux types de patrimoine et le rôle de l’institution dans la définition de l’objet patrimonial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".