De l’artiste à l’auteur : processus de légitimation du cirque comme art de création en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose d’étudier la notion d’auteur dans le contexte circassien français des années 2010 où elle reste controversée et floue malgré un usage de plus en plus courant. Il s’agira notamment de comprendre comment, dans un mouvement d’attraction et de répulsion envers les modèles littéraires et dramatiques, l’identification et la reconnaissance de l’auctorialité des formes scéniques de cet art du corps contribuent à renforcer la légitimité du cirque comme art de création et non pas seulement comme art du divertissement. Après avoir étudié les dimensions visuelle, sensible et physique des écritures scéniques circassiennes proches des esthétiques des scènes postdramatiques, nous détaillerons les formes que prennent les écrits (dossiers, notes, croquis, traces, etc.) produits par les circassien·ne·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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".