MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112937519 · doi:10.4000/danse.3573

« La danse » (populaire) est un mythe ?

2020· article· fr· W3112937519 on OpenAlex
Christophe Apprill

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches en danse · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au regard de quelle catégorie se constitue le populaire en danse ? On comprend d’emblée qu’il ne s’agit ni des danses impopulaires, ni des danses savantes. Nous faisons l’hypothèse que les danses populaires s’opposent à « la Danse » entendue comme art chorégraphique. Si le singulier de la danse désigne a priori l’objet culturel et l’objet artistique, « la Danse » est devenue un signifiant valorisant le second. La construction de cette catégorie est redevable d’une histoire des politiques culturelles qui peut se lire dans la constitution de la recherche en danse en France. Elle se traduit dans la ligne éditoriale du Centre national de la danse et dans l’exposition « On danse ? » du Mucem. Faussement générique, cette catégorie inclut la représentation du « populaire » dans un système de pensée hiérarchique qui maintient dans un impensé la construction de leurs rapports.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it