Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse un ouvrage d’André Gide, Carnets d’Égypte, dans le contexte de ‘late style’, un concept adornien développé par Edward Said. Bien que Carnets d’Égypte représente un des derniers ouvrages de Gide, il ne s’agit pas d’une tentative de créer une impression de complétude ni de couronner une œuvre variée. C’est plutôt un espace créatif où il peut se permettre de se concentrer sur l’inachèvement. Nous examinons donc ce que Gide a choisi de ne pas ‘terminer’ ou même de ne pas ‘finaliser’ – le voyage lui-même et surtout le processus d'écriture qui s'ensuit. Pour Said, ‘late style’ est une attitude que nous pouvons déceler chez certains auteurs qui se trouvent devant la mort. Se concentrer sur l’inachèvement et non sur la complétude dans un tel cas révèle une certaine résistance chez Gide qui est tout de même productive, car elle arrive à faire avancer le processus d’écriture. André Gide in Egypt: the Unfinished and the Creative Process This article analyses a work by André Gide, Carnets d’Égypte, in the context of 'late style', an Adornian concept developed by Edward Said. Although Carnets d’Égypte is one of Gide’s final works, it does not attempt to create a sense of completeness nor does it attempt to crown a varied body of work. It is instead a creative space where he can allow himself to concentrate on the incomplete or the unfinished. I therefore examine what Gide has chosen not to ‘finish’ or even not to ‘finalise’ – that is, the journey itself and more particularly, the related writing process. For Said, ‘late style’ is an attitude that can be detected in certain authors facing death. Concentrating in such a case on what remains unfinished, instead of on completeness, reveals a certain resistance on Gide’s part which is nonetheless productive, since it manages to advance the writing process.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".