Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les festivals de jardins, tel le Festival international de jardins, à Métis au Québec, ont permis aux professionnels paysagistes et architectes paysagistes de fonder une nouvelle forme d’expression. Quant à savoir si l’on est en présence d’un jardin ou d’une œuvre d’art, sachant qu’au plan théorique l’un et l’autre s’examinent différemment, on ne saurait trop dire. L’article tente de cerner le sens des jardins d’installation en utilisant un modèle qui s’ouvre sur une lecture pluridimensionnelle recoupant les disciplines de l’art, de l’art des jardins et de l’architecture des paysages. Il s’agit de la théorie de la gradation des trois natures de John Dixon Hunt, propre à l’étude des jardins de la Renaissance et de l’époque baroque. En examinant deux cas, l’article montre comment leurs créateurs emploient des procédés traditionnels du jardin ou de l’art pour exprimer une vision contemporaine de la nature et du milieu, au premier et au second degré.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".