L'image cubiste et la question de l'autoréférence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis addresses the problems of the autoreferentiality of artworks and of meaning-making. It focuses on Cubism, particularly on artworks by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. The aim of this research is to demonstrate how meaning is constructed in these ambiguous artworks through the interplay of the concepts of referentiality and autoreferentiality. It contends that we cannot abstract or neglect any of these principles without distorting the aesthetic quality of these artworks. This research outlines, in this sense, a current problem in the historiography of Cubism, that is, the ambivalence between a process of internal meaning versus of external meaning, which are currently considered as antithetic phenomena. It also contends that only when we consider the conceptual structure of these artworks, can we fully understand their polysemical character or multi-level significance. The main theoretical framework for this analysis is Roman Jakobson's model of communication which provides a definition of the concept of autoreferentiality as a self-addressing process, through its notions of « message » and «poetic function ». Four aspects of the problem of autoreferentiality are thus examined, through the notions of « context », « destinator », « code », and « receptor » as well as their interrelationships in the artworks. It is also in referring to the modern definitions of sign that the problems of autoreferentiality and meaning-making are addressed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".