Entre musique, nature et technologie. <i>Biophilia </i>de Björk, une oeuvre d’art totale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au fil de ses albums, dont les modes de diffusion se renouvellent constamment et intègrent les technologies les plus récentes à sa disposition, Björk développe et approfondit une philosophie qui consiste à mettre à bas les conceptions qui opposent l’humain au vivant, le vivant à la technologie, et la pureté à l’hybridation. L’album Biophilia (2011), à ce jour son projet le plus ambitieux, a pour but de réaliser la fusion entre la nature et la technologie, mais aussi de surmonter les frontières physiques et culturelles. Pour ce faire, en plus de collaborer avec des scientifiques, des ingénieurs, des musiciens, une musicologue, un naturaliste et des pédagogues, Björk recourt à une nouvelle facture instrumentale, une nouvelle forme de notation musicale, et surtout, de nouveaux procédés de création interactive, puisqu’il s’agit du premier app-album. À bien des égards, Biophilia est une oeuvre d’art totale, reposant aussi bien sur une synthèse des arts que sur la formulation de l’utopie d’une transformation fondamentale de la société.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".