Portrait de Boileau en Hercule bourgeois. Notes sur un prix d’éloquence à l’Institut national (1801-1804)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appliquée au tournant des XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, l’idée d’un « portrait de l’homme en lettres en héros » porte en elle l’ambiguïté attachée à la notion d’héroïsme. Alors partagée entre deux conceptions nettement différenciées, celle-ci témoigne des hésitations caractérisant la définition du mérite et de la grandeur. Consacrée à la mémoire académique de Boileau comme point de cristallisation de l’exemplarité nationale, cette étude de cas propose un échantillon des différents registres héroïques employés à cette occasion. Elle tente, en outre, de penser leur mode de conciliation et d’interpréter le rapport au temps historique qu’ils supposent.AbstractWhen applied to the turn of the 19th century, the idea of ‘portraying the man of letters as a her’ bears the ambiguity inherent to the notion of heroism. As there were two clearly distinguished understandings of the notion at the time, it epitomizes hesitations on how to define merit and grandeur. Looking at academic writings on Boileau as the ground where the idea of national exemplariness crystallized, this case study examines samples of the various heroic styles used in that context. It also considers how such styles could converge and attempts to interpret the different relationships to historical time that they involved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".