Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soumis aux mêmes injonctions que les musées, le patrimoine culturel et touristique a développé depuis les années 2000 des stratégies visant à renouveler les récits qui sont associés aux sites remarquables. À travers la fiction, les commandes aux artistes ou aux écrivains, nombre de lieux, villes et régions, ont engagé des mutations narratives et médiatiques. Mais les artistes répondent eux aussi à ces injonctions par des détournements, redéployant le format de la visite guidée de manière créative. À travers les exemples au tournant des années 2010 de Louise Hervé et Clovis Maillet ; Alex Cecchetti, dans le domaine de la performance artistique et narrative (Pireyre, 2022) ; Marcelline Delbecq et Capucine Vever, artistes déléguant la performance à un livre ou à une application d’audioguide, la promenade littéraire invite à se réapproprier l’espace au-delà des surfaces visibles et à réactiver des histoires souterraines, oubliées ou jugées anecdotiques. Le récit permet alors de faire surgir une autre relation avec l’histoire des lieux et l’espace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.015 |
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".