Faire écran : la surface de projection comme enjeu esthétique dans l'art contemporain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette these examine le role de l'ecran de projection dans les arts plastiques depuis les annees 1960. Elle traite de l'ecran de deux facons. La premiere est historique: elle consiste a retracer l'evolution de l'ecran dans l'art contemporain. L'autre axe considere, esthetique, consiste a analyser les enjeux conceptuels generes par l'ecran. Puisque la surface de projection releve de l'objet et de l'environnement, elle semble se situer a la fois a l'interieur et a l'exterieur de l'œuvre. En :s'organisant autour d'une analyse des proprietes physiques et du fonctionnement de l'ecran, cette !these place ce dernier a la confluence. De trois pratiques : les arts plastiques, la pratique cinematographique et l'exposition museale. Chaque chapitre examine un aspect formel ou conceptuel qui peut etre significatif ou recurrent dans l'emploi de l'ecran a travers ces trois possibilites, et ce en cherchant a trouver le juste milieu entre les artistes et les œuvres celebres et ceux qui le sont moins.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".