La signature de l’homme d’honneur. Considérations sur Conan Doyle et Pierre Bourdieu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article évoque quelques prises de position publiques d’Arthur Conan Doyle en s’intéressant à l’ethos qui s’en dégage : l’intellectuel ne sera digne de s’engager dans la Cité que s’il se distingue comme homme d’honneur. Il lui faudra livrer avec la plume des batailles qui engagent non seulement l’ensemble de son être, mais encore et surtout l’honneur national, dont il se veut le digne représentant. On observera que, dans une logique contraire à la thèse que développe Pierre Bourdieu dans la conclusion des Règles de l’art, l’action politique de Doyle ne s’est révélée efficace qu’à partir du moment où il s’est dégagé des lois du champ littéraire, désertant les plans supérieurs de la littérature au profit du pôle de la grande production.AbstractThis paper reviews some of the numerous causes to which Arthur Conan Doyle lent his prestigious name while stressing the chivalric ethos underlying his public involvements: the intellectual should use his pen to fight those battles which not only affect him personally, but which prove a matter of national honour. It will be shown that, in contradiction to the thesis developed in the conclusion of Pierre Bourdieu’s The Rules of Art, Doyle’s political action became truly efficient only when he accepted to stray from the laws of the literary field, abandoning the higher spheres of literature to become a more potent public force.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".