MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285496370 · doi:10.4000/glad.3723

Constellations créatrices

2022· paratext· fr· W4285496370 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGLAD! · 2022
Typeparatext
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstellationGeographyPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2270.024

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 head0.288
Teacher spread0.228 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGLAD!Same topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207