Bibliographic record
Abstract
Écrire et peindre sont deux pratiques différentes ayant chacune ses propres techniques Il existe un rapport de rivalité et d’influence autant que de complémentarité et de coexistence entre ces deux arts. Cette étude porte sur Un chasseur de lions, roman d’Olivier Rolin et Histoires pour Matisse d’Antonia Susan Byatt, deux œuvres qui franchissent les frontières du littéraire pour transposer le pictural. La visée de cette recherche est bien de découvrir les modalités d’émergence du pictural dans ces textes littéraires. Nous nous proposerons tout d’abord d’examiner la diversité des liens entre la littérature et la peinture. Nous nous attarderons ensuite sur le processus créatif des œuvres du corpus. Nous nous interrogerons enfin sur leur fonctionnement interne, ce qui nous donnera l’occasion de voir à quel point la porosité entre texte et image permet un dialogue fécond et créatif, susceptible de nourrir un débat interdisciplinaire.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".