MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1418253704 · doi:10.7202/1090080ar

Amitié et anamorphose chez Montaigne et Holbein

2022· article· fr· W1418253704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nancy Frelick

Bibliographic record

VenueTopiques études satoriennes · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composés sous les doubles signes de l’amour et de la mort, de l’anamorphose et de l’aporie, Les Essais de Michel de Montaigne et Les Ambassadeurs de Hans Holbein sont des monuments renaissants à l’amitié. Montaigne voue son texte protéen au souvenir d’Etienne de La Boétie, l’ami absent autour duquel se construisent les « grotesques » de ses essais, tandis que Holbein mémorialise la rencontre des ambassadeurs et amis Jean de Dinteville (bailli de Troyes) et George de Selve (évêque de Lavaur) en Angleterre en 1533, autour du fameux memento mori anamorphotique du crâne au premier plan. Si le tableau et le texte figurent le double postulat de la vie et de la mort, de l’absence et de la présence, du passage du temps et de valeurs sempiternelles, ils partagent aussi une esthétique du retour, du détournement, propre à la perspective curieuse ou oblique, qui ne cesse de remettre en cause l’univocité du signe. Il s’agit donc, dans cet article, d’interroger les convergences et divergences de procédés et de points de vue impliquant la participation de l’ami lecteur, qui est interpellé par les signes troubles de ces oeuvres mouvantes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopiques études satoriennesSame topicFrench Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207