Le pouvoir transformateur de l’art, à la tangence entre l’individuel et le collectif: Rapport de synthèse pour L’HABILITATION à DIRIGER des RECHERCHES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this report is to present my career path, my thesis position and my research prospects with a view to applying for the Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches in section 18.It is divided into three main chapters, chronologically and then thematically: the first chapter presents my career path and achievements. The first part is devoted to the research aspects of my work as a heritage curator (scientific project development, inventory, mediation) and exhibition curator (catalogue design and direction); the second part sets out the conditions and motivations behind my commitment to university research through a master's degree and then a doctorate from 2004 to 2010; the third part presents the professional consequences of this change of direction in terms of teaching. The second chapter presents my detailed thesis position, and the third chapter my current and future work.As an introduction, I will briefly describe my career path and thesis position.Career path: from museum management to academic researchAfter graduating from the Institut National du Patrimoine as a territorial museum curator in 1993 - specializing in modern and contemporary Western art - I directed the Musée- Promenade de Marly-le-Roi from 1998 to 2014. Having obtained my doctorate in 2010, I have been qualified as a Maitre de Conférences since 2011 - specializing in the history of aesthetic exchanges between Asia and the West in the 20ᵉ and 21ᵉ centuries, a member of the Langarts inter-university laboratory and an associate researcher at CREOPS. I am a master's lecturer at IESA, Institut Catholique de Paris, and taught a master's course at the University of Nalanda in India from January to December 2016, as Visiting Assistant Professor.The coherence of my career lies in the similarity of the curatorial and teaching-research functions in terms of their objectives and methodology. What they have in common is knowledge of a body of work, its inclusion in a theoretical field and the sharing of this knowledge.In the curatorial profession, research is both cognitive and sensitive, offering the opportunity to convey information and analysis, not only through text (written or oral), but also by bringing viewers face-to-face with the works, in a staged space. For me, this sensitive, practical and experimental aspect is a source of great discovery and satisfaction. Setting the scene and mediating with a public of all ages has forced me to analyze visitors' expectations, to understand the mechanisms of interaction with the work and its environment, and to express the hidden springs of it in simple words.This professional practice has thus nourished my teaching methods - participative, inductive - and master's supervision - requiring logic in argumentation, insisting on sensitive description of materials, forms and conditions of visibility of the work. It has also had an impact on my academic publications, devoted first to contemporary British and then Asian art - Chinese, Indian and Pakistani.My thesis position is the expression of this dual path. It is at once empirical, sensible and theoretical.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".