MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4299711618 · doi:10.4000/contextes.174

Ce que la littérature fait à la sociologie de l’art. Remarques à propos de L’Élite artiste de Nathalie Heinich

2022· article· fr· W4299711618 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Glinoer

Bibliographic record

VenueContextes · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Une sociologie à partir de l’artL’Élite artiste. Excellence et singularité en régime démocratique (2005) poursuit l’exploration entreprise avec Le triple jeu de l’art contemporain (1998) et Être écrivain. Création et identité (2000). Celle-ci vise à expliciter le statut des créateurs, tant au niveau de « leur situation réelle » que de « leur rôle imaginaire » et de « leur place symbolique ». C’était déjà le programme fixé par Ce que l’art fait à la sociologie (1998) et que Nathalie Heinich su...

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.005

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueContextesSame topicCultural Insights and Digital ImpactsFrench-language works237,207