Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Master thesis has for its objective mapping of destiny of czech comunity in Paris from sixties to eighties. Its purpose is not to get a complete list of all artists, who came to Paris. It's just a sellection of those important persons, who broke through Paris. The personal interviews play an important part of the sources. The thesis is not structured in medallion-biography way, but it is lined up in a thematic way. Most of the artists handled in their new home country withe similar problems and situations. First theoretical part characterise the period, the environment, the czech-french relations and the general phenomena of emigration in the czech historical memory. In sixties the czech-french relations started to be reanimated and many french art critics visited Czechoslovakia and they wrote about czech art. Beside France, the czech emigration refuged in sixties largely to West Germany, United States of America, Canada, austrian Wien, Swiss and nordic countries. Individuals art centres were connected to others by friendships and artists visited themselves. Second and more extensive part of the thesis works with the oral and witten interviews. The respondent artists are Miloš Cvach, Roman Kameš, Karel Machálek-Zlín, Miloslav Moucha, Vladimír Škoda, Ivan Theimer and art historian Jana Claverie....
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".