« Les droits de l'art. Perspectives sur une recherche pluridisciplinaire »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le colloque Les droits de l’art. Perspectives sur une recherche pluridisciplinaire sera l’occasion de faire dialoguer des juristes et des chercheurs en sciences humaines et sociales autour de l’art, de son interprétation et de ses droits. Il émane du laboratoire de recherche franco-québécois L’art en procès (www.uqtr.ca/art-en-proces), qui réunit des juristes, des linguistes et des spécialistes de l’art et de la littérature. Depuis 2016, ces chercheur.e.s croisent leurs expertises pour analyser, en commun, des procès intentés à l’art, dans les tribunaux comme dans l’espace public. Dans la continuité des travaux du laboratoire, le colloque sera l’occasion de confronter les outils et les procédures herméneutiques du droit, des études littéraires, de la linguistique, de la sociologie et de l’histoire de l’art, etc., et de réunir des chercheur.e.s qui travaillent dans une perspective interdisciplinaire sur l’art et le droit, de sorte à cartographier les recherches actuelles, en particulier celles qui se développent depuis quelques années dans l’espace francophone.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".