Dukken som animeret billede – mellem idolatri og idollatry, mellem dukkekult og dukkekærlighed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In 2020, the annual seminar at Art History in Aarhus was dedicated to a category of images usually absent from art historical research: dolls and puppets. The premise of the seminar was that through their animation, dolls or puppets are a universal, albeit historical, kind of image across all visual and anthropological cultures. A doll may be defined as an interactive, animated, representational figure, tangible and usually anthropomorphic. Dolls and puppets are closely related to other three-dimensional images, such as statues, sculptures, fetishes, and idols, but they have been unduly marginalized within art history due to their lowly associations with the childish and the feminine, with play and palpable interactivity rather than disengaged aesthetic contemplation. In this playful primer in pupalogy, we approach art historiography from the animated and ludic perspective of the doll. We engage with dolls in order to learn more about their history and historiography, their forms of animation, scale, etymology, materiality, and liminal status between life and death. The article thus toys with the deepest heritage of the image: its animation, its play, and its ludic interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.007 |
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".