Pourquoi 1989? Ecrire sur le feminisme, l’art et le “contemporain global \nWhy 1989? Writing about feminism, art and “the global contemporary”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consulter le sommaire - Lire l'introduction Recueil de travaux inédits, d’études historiques, et de propositions esthétiques, cette anthologie d’approches théoriques et artistiques féministes en art contemporain affirme la nécessité de penser l’articulation entre art et histoire globale, art et genre, art et corporéités, art et postcolonialité ou décolonialité, à partir de références textuelles, visuelles, performatives et conceptuelles. L’ouvrage retrace les enjeux épistémologiques de ces croisements. Les propositions théoriques et artistiques ici réunies déconstruisent les cloisonnements disciplinaires en considérant d’un point de vue intersectionnel les arts visuels, la performance, la littérature, l'architecture… Prenant acte du contexte globalisé, elles explorent des territoires culturels multiples – de l’Afrique du Sud à la Bolivie, en passant par le Canada, les États-Unis, la France, l’Inde, le Panama, la Russie, la Turquie, l’Ukraine. Portfolio : Gabrielle Le Roux - Portfolio : La Centrale Galerie Powerhouse, Montréal - Portfolio : Mujeres Creando - Portfolio : Dalida María Benfield Avec des contributions de Muriel Andrin, Clélia Barbut, Dalida María Benfield, Rebecca Close, Anne Creissels, Stéphanie Dadour, Katy Deepwell, Fabienne Dumont, María Galindo, Virginie Jourdain, Aurélie Journée-Duez, Melanie Klein, Verónica Lahitte, Dominique Malaquais, Anyely Marín Cisneros, Liza Petiteau, Griselda Pollock et Nataliya Tchermalykh.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".