L’Institutionnalisation de l’histoire de l’art en France au XIXe siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the beginnings of art history instruction in France in a wide range of institutions of higher, or specialized, learning, as they relate to the disciplines introduction in the university. These other sites included the Collège de France , founded in the sixteenth century; the École des chartes , specializing in the analysis of historic documents; the École des Beaux-Arts and the École du Louvre ; state-sponsored schools of archaeology in Athens and in Rome; and the École Pratique des Hautes Études which, from the 1860s, offered seminars in archaeology. A substantial body of scholarship was also produced through individual research and archaeological networks like that initiated by Arcisse de Caumont, though Émile Mâle claimed in 1894 that this corpus remained unknown in the university setting. However unevenly, the process of disciplinary formation was one that unfolded from without to within the university as it was articulated across institutions with divergent missions and organizational forms. As an emergent field within the university, the position of art history was marked by relations both of dependence and tension in regard to classical archaeology. Ancient art figured earliest in university art history teaching because of its links with the humanist tradition and the discipline of history. The art of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and, eventually, later periods gained legitimacy in the university under the aegis of history. Crucial here was recognition granted by university historians in enabling art history to achieve status as a separate discipline, characterized by its own methods, beside the fields of history and philosophy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".