Le développement des performance studies à l’université et ses impacts sur l’institutionnalisation des pratiques artistiques performatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis les dernières décennies du XXesiècle, on assiste au développement desperformance studiesà l’université et à l’institutionnalisation des pratiques artistiques performatives dans les mondes de l’art. Quelles sont les corrélations entre ces deux phénomènes presque concomitants ? En procédant à une analyse comparative basée sur des données empiriques tirées d’observations de deux institutions, l’Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics et Performa, cet article retrace la formation de deux réseaux qui se sont développés simultanément sur un même territoire, en coopération avec deux facultés de l’Université de New York. En dépit de ces points communs, nous avons plutôt affaire à des mondes relativement étanches. Des enjeux disciplinaires, épistémologiques et économiques ainsi que des manières différentes de concevoir l’art au sein de l’université constituent des pistes de réponse.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".