Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1990 and 1991, the city of Montreal commissioned a sculpture in two pieces, les Leçons singulières, from the artist Michel Goulet and erected it on two neighbouring sites: Place Roy and Parc Lafontaine. The city of Montreal “produced” the work through a contest modelling itself on the established procedures of the one-percent-programmes. It was the first of its kind to be organized by the City and the large action programme is still going on as of today. The local newspapers reviewed les Leçons singulières very negatively especially the piece occupying Place Roy arguing the disappearance of a parking lot and the poor quality of the surrounding buildings. It initiated a debate on the nature and the uses of public spaces and even involved the architects, the urban designers, the landscape architects and the municipal services, all of whom seemed to be acting as the actual “authors” of the litigated place. Even the users of Place Roy voiced their opposition in the newspapers and in the electronic media insisting mainly on the uselessness of the “chairs,” the formal disposition of the work which reduced it to some sort of installation rather than the expected vertical monolith. A careful analysis of the written press and the examination of diverse markings found on the site itself (some strange use of the area, graffiti, etc.) reveal also some individual reactions and private interests and possibly some understated political agenda. Besides being an innovative piece of public sculpture, les Leçons singulières remains an exemplary case study of art in the public space. This article analyzes the reception of the double piece in the media and examines how those different levels of intervention in public commissions tend to erase the artist as main author of the work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".