Student’s Artistic Decisions Generated by Personal Preferences in the Process of Creation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article porte sur les intérêts personnels de l’élève lors d’interventions d’artistes et plus largement en enseignement des arts. Today, l'éducation artistique est soucieuse des interests de l'élève dans son processus de création artistique. Dans les recherches sur les interventions d'artistes, des divergences concernant la prise en compte de l'intérêt de l'élève appear entre d'un côté, les acteurs de l'école, les enseignants et les conseillers pédagogiques, et, de l 'autre, les artistes et les élèves. Les différences portent sur la representation des interests de l’élève lors des three étapes du processus de création: l’inspiration, l’elaboration et l’exposition au public. Les résultats de recherche questionnent les représentations des intérêts personales des élèves dans des projets culturels ou en enseignement des arts. In conclusion, the article proposes aux milieux scolaires et à leurs milieux de recherche et de formation, de développer l’intérêt artistique, un intérêt essentiel pour la participation de chacun à l’aménagement culturel de son territoire.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".