Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting Meret Oppenheim’s Fur-Covered Cup, Saucer and Spoon (1936) as the paradigmatic surrealist object, this article tries to show how the critical reception of the work has generally overlooked the actual disrupting functions of surrealist objects at both their psychological and epistemological levels. Furthermore relying on Roland Barthes’s text “The Semantics of the Object” which analyzes the dual—metaphorical and metonymical—character of objects, this article suggests that the increasing fascination for hybrid things in Surrealists’ activities during the 1930s not only offers the opportunity for a symbolic interpretation, but also requires a contextual reading of their typical presentation in exhibitions. It is only at these levels that the amplitude of the Surrealists’ epistemological project as some sort of Borghesian heterotopical taxonomy can be fully understood. Finally, the gendering of Meret Oppenheim’s piece opens up a criticism of the Freudian theory on fetishism, usually conceived as an essentially masculine perversion towards the sexually neutralized theory developed in Mélanie Klein’s analysis of pre-Oedipian part-objects. This assumption can be supported by the Surrealists’ texts on the paranoid function of the objects they had the urge to make.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".