MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412125345 · doi:10.4000/14azv

Ethos et autorité au féminin. L’androgynie créatrice dans le Manifeste d’un art nouveau : la polyvision de Nelly Kaplan

2025· article· fr· W4412125345 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah-Jeanne Beauchamp Houde

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches & travaux · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-Appalache
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosArtHumanitiesPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le manifeste avant-gardiste, texte de l’« engagement total » (Burger), ne manque pas d’être associé aux chefs de file des trois mouvements d’avant-garde historique que sont le futurisme, dada et le surréalisme. En effet, la virilité associée à sa force de rupture, additionnée à sa nature théorique, font du manifeste un moyen tout indiqué pour la consécration d’une autorité charismatique (Guiyoba). Seulement, nombre de signataires, sans être porteur·euse·s d’une autorité préalable au même titre que le sont Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Tristan Tzara ou André Breton, usent de ce genre non seulement dans la défense d’une esthétique innovatrice contribuant à l’évolution de leur mouvement d’appartenance, mais aussi dans l’établissement d’une image de soi à même le discours manifestaire. Cet article interroge, par le biais d’une analyse du Manifeste d’un art nouveau : la polyvision de Nelly Kaplan, les liens qu’entretiennent les notions d’autorité et d’ethos discursif au sein du discours manifestaire. Plus précisément, il y sera question de l’ethos teinté d’androgynie que l’artiste surréaliste élabore au service de sa promotion de l’art cinématographique qu’est la Polyvision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.032
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches & travauxSame topicFrench Historical and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207