MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159463269 · doi:10.4000/danse.3748

Des gestes aux mots : corpus, intertextualités et méthodologies croisées

2021· article· fr· W3159463269 on OpenAlexaff
Annaëlle Toussaere, Constance Vidal-Naquet

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches en danse · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article est le compte-rendu de journées d’études « Des gestes aux mots : corpus, intertextualités et méthodologies croisées » organisées par Céline Gauthier, Alice Godfroy, Mélanie Mesager et Marie Philippart, qui ont eu lieu le 10 et 11 avril 2019 à l’Université Côte d’Azur. En réponse aux nombreux ouvrages, colloques, recherches qui mettent en relation les études littéraires et les études en danse, ces journées d’études ont tenté de mettre en lumière les méthodologies qui se construisent à la croisée entre plusieurs champs disciplinaires. Comment étudier des œuvres et des pratiques artistiques qui convoquent à la fois les gestualités et les textualités ? En quoi cela transforme en retour les outils et méthodes de recherche mis en pratique ? Les œuvres qui intègrent textes et gestes révèlent, voire remettent en question nos différentes façons de les appréhender. La pluralité des inventions méthodologiques et des objets d’études ont permis de penser du point de vue des savoirs somatiques et kinésiques, mais aussi anthropologiques et esthétiques. Cet article tente de rendre compte à la fois des propositions des différent·e·s participant·e·s mais aussi des discussions que chaque intervention a suscitées.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.067 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches en danseSame topicPhilosophical and Theoretical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207