Observation, vif et création faiseur d'images dans un rapport au réel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observation comme outil de contemplation \n \nL'observation comme une méthode de la perception personnelle devant les choses qui me semblent privilégiées. \n \nL'observation comme une action de ma relation avec l'art et ma vie. \n \nL'observation comme une réflexion sur la place des individus dans l'environnement urbain. \n \nL'observation comme un regard timidement porté vers les situations qui passent, tout comme le temps. \n \nL'observation comme une prise de position critique sur ma situation en tant qu'individu. \n \nL'observation comme un état de conscience de sa présence dans un lieu. \n \nL'observation comme un constat sur le temps. \n \nL'observation comme un constat sur les formes qui structurent notre champ visuel. \n \nL'observation comme une documentation. \n \nDocumentation du quotidien \n \nJe suis un documentariste de la vie quotidienne. \n \nJe suis un documentariste du temps qui passe. \n \nJe suis un documentariste par mon vécu en tant qu'individu. \n \nJe suis un documentariste par ma présence et ma perception de mon entourage. \n \nJe suis un documentariste des faits et gestes de ceux que j'observe.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".