Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce numéro, issu d’un travail de deux ans amorcé lors du colloque « Constellations créatrices : héritages et réseaux féminins / queer », propose une réflexion autour de la notion de « constellations », que les autrices ont tâché d’approcher et de définir à partir de corpus et de méthodologies diverses – histoire de l’art, littérature, création, socio-histoire et sciences de l’information et de la communication. Cette démarche conduit à questionner certains grands mythes de la création : ceux de l’héritage et de la postérité, du panthéon ou du canon, du centre et de la marge, de l’objectivité des jugements de valeur décidant quelles sont les grandes œuvres d’un patrimoine, du pouvoir de l’art et de la littérature sur la société. Il s’agit d’imaginer des manières de sortir des « filiations obligatoires », d’en justifier l’intérêt. La notion de « constellations » est ainsi pensée comme un outil critique, une « pratique », propice au déploiement de nouvelles méthodes de recherche autour des œuvres d’artistes femmes ou queer. Nous proposons une notion de constellation en soi créatrice : une « critique constellatrice », bricolée, étayée par différents exemples et contextes d’analyse. This issue is the result of a two-year work initiated during the conference “Creative Constellations: Feminine/Queer Heritages and Networks”. It proposes a collective reflection on the concept of "constellations", which the authors have tried to approach and define from various corpuses and methodologies - art history, literature, creation, socio-history, and communication studies. This approach leads to questioning some major myths of creation: those of heritage and posterity, of the pantheon or the canon, of the centre and the margin, of the objectivity of value judgements deciding which are the great works of a heritage, of the power of art and literature over society. It is a question of imagining ways to get out of the "obligatory filiations", to justify their interest. The concept of "constellations" is thus thought of as a critical tool, a "practice", conducive to the deployment of new research methods around the works of women or queer artists. We propose a notion of constellation that is in itself creative: a "constellating critique", cobbled together, supported by different cases and contexts of analysis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.006 |
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.
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".