Les formes symboliques de la science : le cas des photographies numériques de Laurent Lamarche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’axe de réflexion principal de cette contribution porte sur les effets formels et sémantiques liés à l’usage des dispositifs numériques dans la création artistique, plus particulièrement les photographies numériques de l’artiste canadien Laurent Lamarche, dont la grammaire visuelle est inspirée par les technosciences et la biologie moléculaire. Compte tenu de leur similarité avec des organismes moléculaires couplée à leur apparente scientificité, la question que l’on pose ici est la suivante : peut-on qualifier les œuvres de cet artiste de formes symboliques de la science ? Pour tenter de répondre à cette interrogation, nous revenons d’abord sur la définition de la forme symbolique proposée par Ernst Cassirer, revisitons subséquemment le modèle triadique du signe de Charles Sanders Peirce, qui différencie les indices, les icônes et les symboles.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".