Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cette étude où narratologie médiatique, concepts-clés des Game Studies et théorie barthienne du jeu contribuent à approfondir un questionnement relevant des Disability Studies, nous nous intéressons à l’expérience VR Notes on Blindness (Audiogaming, 2016), inspirée du journal intime de l’universitaire et théologien aveugle John Martin Hull, pour montrer que la réalité virtuelle ouvre un espace radicalement neuf pour penser et contempler la cécité. À mi-chemin entre court métrage et jeu vidéo, Notes on Blindness VR crée un espace audiovisuel d’exploration de la cécité à la fois fictif et autobiographique, à l’auctorialité multiple. À l’opposé de la prothèse narrative telle que la définissent les théoriciens des discours du handicap David. T. Mitchell et Sharon L. Snyder, ce programme de réalité virtuelle, qui configure un partage des subjectivités aveugle et voyante, s’avère être une prothèse numérique interactive féconde pour célébrer la cécité comme accroissement du vécu sensoriel du monde.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".