The Brush Stroke as Catastrophe: Gasquet’s Cézanne and the Paintings of Bibémus Quarry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, j’examine les représentations de la carrière de Bibémus par Cézanne dans le contexte de l’essai Cézanne, dans lequel le poète symboliste Joachim Gasquet rend compte de ses conversations avec l’artiste et commente la façon dont il peignait sur le motif. Je m’intéresse en particulier aux métaphores géologiques dont Gasquet se sert pour décrire l’usage que fait Cézanne du coup de pinceau ou de la tache—des métaphores qui sont de nature plutôt hybride sur le plan idéologique et esthétique et évoquent par là avec d’autant plus de force le processus pictural cézannien. Entraînant la discussion vers l’analyse formelle de trois des peintures de Bibémus tout en veillant à ne pas tomber dans le formalisme (et son insistance sur l’autonomie esthétique), l’article tend à faire ressortir certaines des implications scientifiques, sociales et implicitement philosophiques qui caractérisent la facture particulière du peintre.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".