MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W361175869 · doi:10.4000/perspective.3676

Les tableaux de Jeff Wall, entre réalisme et absorbement

2007· article· fr· W361175869 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katia Arfara

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspective · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyArtCombinatoricsHumanitiesMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

trois ans ont dclench une importante activit ditoriale qui claire l'impact de l'artiste canadien sur la photographie contemporaine. l'occasion de la premire rtrospective au Schaulager de Ble a paru le catalogue raisonn de l'artiste 1 ; plus modeste, l'exposition de la Tate Modern Londres a t accompagne d'un colloque dont les actes viennent de paratre dans un numro spcial de l'Oxford Art Journal (vol. 30/1, 2007) ; enfin, l'occasion de la rtrospective Jeff Wall aux tats-Unis coorganise par Peter Galassi et Neal Benezra (New York, Museum of Modern Art/San Francisco, Museum of Modern Art, 2007-2008), a paru une nouvelle slection d'crits et d'entretiens de l'artiste 2 . 2 En France, l'oeuvre de Jeff Wall a fait l'objet d'une monographie signe par Jean-Franois Chevrier, auteur galement de l'essai introductif du Catalogue raisonn du Schaulager. En vue de la parution de son livre sur la photographie -dont le titre provisoire est Ontological Pictures: The argument of recent photography -Michael Fried a inclus, quant lui, dans son dernier ouvrage Contre la thtralit. Du minimalisme la photographie contemporaine, un chapitre consacr la photographie, manifestant ainsi nouveau son intrt pour Jeff Wall 3 . Dans sa premire partie, le recueil propose de (re)dcouvrir l'activit critique que M. Fried dveloppait dans les annes 1960 autour

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.006

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.160 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectiveSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207