MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312999815 · doi:10.7202/1093778ar

Among Different Media: Gerhard Richter’s Landscape and its Medial Exchanges

2022· article· fr· W4312999815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anthi-Danaé Spathoni

Bibliographic record

VenueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniques · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaintingThe artsOpenness to experienceSubject (documents)Rendering (computer graphics)Landscape paintingMultidisciplinary approachVisual artsFine artPhotographySubject matterArtSociologyPsychologyComputer scienceSocial scienceSocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the artist’s very first photo-paintings to the most recent abstracts, landscape has been an omnipresent subject in Gerhard Richter’s career that presents a complete openness to different media, especially photography. This article attempts to study these multidisciplinary and intermedial references, the dialogue and mingling of the arts, as well as their contribution to landscape painting. Its purpose is to show not only how Richter integrates other works and characteristics from different arts, but also how works of art earlier in time can be perceived in his landscape depictions. To this end, the study of some representative examples helps us embrace various aspects of Richter’s practice, especially the ones that engage in a particular dialogue with abstraction, rendering the works of art, as it will be shown, into intra -, inter -, trans -, and multi -medial landscapes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.018
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 venueIntermédialités Histoire et théorie des arts des lettres et des techniquesSame topicEcology, Conservation, and Geographical StudiesFrench-language works237,207