MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226112881 · doi:10.1093/fmls/cqac008

Surrealizing Wifredo Lam?

2022· article· en· W4226112881 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elza Adamowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueForum for Modern Language Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCuban History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryArtInterpretation (philosophy)TemptationPaintingPoliticsMerge (version control)EthnographyRelation (database)SociologyAestheticsLiteratureArt historyAnthropologyPhilosophyLinguisticsLawComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In their writings on the Cuban artist Wifredo Lam, Surrealists and the related avant-garde forge a fictional construct, ‘Wifredo Lam.’ Their texts are explored in relation to what André Breton identified as the two approaches to the artwork: a subjective approach expressed through poetic language; and an interpretation based on objective knowledge expressed through rational language. An overview of Lam’s artistic activities focuses on his participation in Surrealist activities and his affinities with its principles. Breton goes further, appropriating the artist for Surrealism, attributing poetic, mythical and primitivizing qualities to the paintings. His interpretation contrasts with Leiris’s ethnographic approach to Lam as ‘un homme métis’ [a man of mixed ethnicity], corresponding to the second ‘temptation’ proposed by Breton. Finally, it will be argued that the two discourses often cohabit and merge, notably in texts on the artist by Aimé Césaire, for whom Lam was a political companion in their shared commitment to political liberation and the recognition of a Caribbean identity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum for Modern Language StudiesSame topicCuban History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207