인상주의 미술과 풍자화가 그린 "위험한 계급"-19세기말 파리 노동자의 이미지 형성-_pre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Haussmanisation under the Second Empire of France formed two interesting spaces in the northeastern arrondissements of Paris. One was the working-class living quarter and the other is Montmartre, the mecca of European artists. Artists and workers met on the streets around Montmartre. These artists were famous impressionists such as Manet, Monet, Renoir, and Caillebotte, post-impressionists, Van Gogh and Toulouse-Lautrec, and finally caricaturists like Daumier and Steinlen who were impressed by Zola’s novels and interested in the low class from railroad workers to laundresses. \nThe artists recognized workers’ peculiarities in body, fashion, and political and leisure cultures sharply different from their bourgeois counterparts. Bourgeois men symbolized the virtue of morality, self-constraint, and intelligence in their black suits to stage the rupture from the Ancien Rgime, while their women had to continue the Rococo fashion of luxury as the proof of their husband’s economic ability. On the contrary, male and female workers in casual outfits did not show as much gender difference as bourgeois. It was partly because of the long-term hard work, which resulted not only in the physical traces of pains like muscles, big hands and toughness, but also in emotional scars of anger, sadness, despair, and loneliness. \nThe Artists visualized workers not only in work places, but also in leisure time. While the bourgeois class went to either the Opera house to enjoy ballet performances or to suburbs to ride on boats, the working class hanged around workers’ cafés near home to drink and discuss social issues. The images of Parisian workers were visualized by artists and spreaded to the public through newspapers, journals, posters, and exhibitions. Whether the public recognized these images as dangerous or not, this was the first and massive \nvisualization of Parisian workers of the late nineteenth century.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.025 |
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".