Relocating the Vernacular: The Yves Beauregard Collection at the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the rightful repository of vernacular photographs? Are certain institutions less suitable to the collection, preservation, and presentation of the vernacular object than others? This essay investigates these questions through the analysis of a particular photographic archive: the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec’ s recently acquired Yves Beauregard Collection. Consisting of 3,540 vernacular photographs ranging from nineteenth-century cartes-de-visite to early-twentieth-century postcards, this collection was amassed over a twenty-year period by Québec historian Yves Beauregard. Using the writings on the notion of vernacular photography of Geoffrey Batchen as a theoretical framework and springboard, this essay proposes that these kinds of objects both destabilize and potentially enrich the art-history concepts at the foundation of the fine art museum. RÉSUMÉQuel est le dépôt approprié pour les photographies « vernaculaires » ou du quotidien? Certaines institutions sont-elles moins convenables que d’autres pour faire l’acquisition, la conservation et la présentation de matériaux populaires? Ce texte explore ces questions en examinant une collection d’archives photographiques spécifique, la collection Yves Beauregard, qui a été acquise récemment par le Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec. Comprenant 3 540 photographies vernaculaires, à partir des cartes de visite du dix-neuvième siècle jusqu’aux cartes postales du début du vingtième siècle, cette collection a été amassée sur une période de vingt ans par l’historien québécois Yves Beauregard. En se servant de la notion de la photographie vernaculaire de Geoffrey Batchen comme cadre théorique et comme tremplin, ce texte propose que ce type d’objet remet en question et enrichit les concepts de l’histoire de l’art qui sont à la base des musées des beaux arts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 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".