Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It has long been recognised that creativity is a vital part of literature's contribution to the interdisciplinary concerns of this journal. But while creativity is readily apparent in a host of writers from Auden to Zamyatin, it can be harder to recognise the imaginative contribution of the literary critic. Although departments of literary studies are forever redefining their raison d'être and celebrating the intellectual diversity of faculty members, critical essays rarely merit description as creative acts and are even more rarely defined by their imaginative intensity. One exception to this rule is the work of John Schad, and Literature and Theology are delighted that he accepted an invitation to give the 2011 Annual Lecture, republished as the first article of this issue. From the very start, Schad's work on literature and theology has been marked by playfulness and an attention to the creative possibilities of the literary form. All critics aspire to keeping the texts they analyse open to new readings, but ensuring that this aspiration does not lead to asphyxiation or imaginative expiration can be a challenge. In this respect, as in so many others, Schad's work has been a source of renewal, and his commitment to exploring new interpretative possibilities is evident in both the form and content of his writing. Early books, such as The Reader in the Dickensian Mirrors (1992), are methodologically innovative in their refusal to operate solely within an established theoretical paradigm. Schad's formal innovations took another step forward in 2004, however, with the publication of Queer Fish: Christian Unreason from Darwin to Derrida. As well as bringing to life a marginal and subversive Christian tradition, the book utilised extended sequences of associative thought to offer an alternative style of critical writing. As I commented when reviewing the work for Christianity and Literature, the book was ‘one of the most exciting and imaginative contributions to the field of religion and literature for some time’. But Schad's work took a stranger and still more exciting turn in 2007 with the publication of Someone Called Derrida: An Oxford Mystery. This is one of the best ‘critical’ works that I have read. I use the word ‘critical’ with caution, for it is a book that defies generic categorisation. It is, at one and the same time, an astute close reading of Derrida's ‘Envois', a moving memoir of John Schad's father, an investigation into Oxford wartime secrets, a mystery story, an intellectual history and a piece of creative writing. Schad's work has continued to push the boundaries of criticism since then: his series Critical Inventions, published by Sussex Academic Press, is outstanding, and his wonderful forthcoming book The Late Walter Benjamin (Continuum, 2012) is worth reading at the earliest opportunity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,541 | 0,300 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».