OBERHUBER, d’Andrea (Québec, 2012). Corps de papier: résonances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'étude hétéroclite d'Andrea Oberhuber, où la riche multiplicité des formes textuelles et visuelles se marie à une chorale harmonieuse de voix féminines, demande un compte rendu critique à son image, c'est-à-dire, écrit à plusieurs mains, illustré de collages inédits.Sans doute plus que toute autre chose, Corps de papier : résonances est une œuvre sur la collaboration, et ce, entre femmes.Dans son travail critique expérimental, Oberhuber est « accompagnée » (quelle belle image musicale soulignant l'esprit de sororité qui se dégage de l'œuvre) de Catherine Mavrikakis, Nicole Brossard et Verena Stefan, créatrices contemporaines qui ont toutes les trois contribué à l'ouvrage.Oberhuber est également en consonance à la fois parfaite et anachronique avec d'autres femmes-artistes, notamment Claire de Duras, Claude Cahun, Leonora Carrington, Unica Zürn et Élise Turcotte, les « héroïnes de papier » (15) sur lesquelles porte son étude, aussi bien qu'avec A. et Andrina, les avatars qu'elle a inventés et qu'elle assume sur le mode fictif.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.007 |
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".