Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir du constat de la double négation et par là du reniement inscrits dans les nom et prénom de Denis Vanier, il s’agit de penser les processus de légitimation du nom et de l’oeuvre. Les livres créent un dispositif tentant de contrer l’abjuration de soi qui traverse le travail poétique de l’écrivain. La légitimation de l’écriture se fait dans la mise en place d’un réseau de noms d’artistes et d’écrivains connus qui vont signer et contresigner l’oeuvre de Vanier dans les préfaces multiples et les citations infinies qui jonchent les différents livres. On assiste aussi à une surenchère de portraits photographiques de Vanier sur les couvertures de ses livres. Ces photos sont là pour faire de la présence physique du poète un rempart contre le reniement de soi. C’est la figure de Judas, celui qui trahit, que Vanier développe tout particulièrement afin de parvenir, à travers un mécanisme infini de négations, à affirmer la souveraineté de sa poésie.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.029 |
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".