Pour une lecture postcoloniale de la bande dessinée Ile Bourbon 1730 (2006) de Appollo et Lewis Trondheim.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract (E): On his blog of Feb. 7 2007, Bart Beaty wrote about Ile Bourbon 1730: « this is a well-crafted but minor work,” and goes on saying “certainly not essential in the grand scheme of all things Trondheimian.” If it is possible to argue that within the « grand Trondheimian scheme » made of numerous creative and funny formal inventions, this particular bande dessinée is not especially innovative, this same argumentation poses the problem of the blindness of a formalist critique. In my essay, I show that Ile Bourbon 1730 constitutes a critique of the traditional French history which, up to recently, ignored slavery. In this perspective, formal aspects, even if they are not entirely new, are smartly used to deconstruct the official history, leading the reader to decide for him/herself how to read a BD in general, and this one in particular. Abstract (F): Sur son blog du 7 février 2007, Bart Beaty écrit à propos de Ile Bourbon 1730 (2006) : « this is a well-crafted but minor work. […] certainly not essential in the grand scheme of all things Trondheimian ». S’il est vrai que dans le « grand schème trondheimien » fait de nombreuses inventions formelles intelligentes et amusantes, Bourbon n’est pas une œuvre particulièrement innovante, elle constitue une critique de l’histoire traditionnelle française qui jusqu'à tout récemment ignorait l’esclavage. Dans cette perspective, les aspects formels, même s’ils ne sont pas entièrement neufs, sont remarquablement utilisés pour déconstruire l’histoire officielle et amener le lecteur engagé à réagir en se distançant du héraut pour se faire sa propre opinion.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.146 | 0.054 |
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".