Les logiques du fonctionnement du discours esthétique chez les paysans du Salento. Une exégèse inachevée ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une fréquentation prolongée et intense entamée depuis 2008 avec un groupe restreint d’anciens chanteurs paysans du Salento, au sud de l’Italie, nous a persuadée qu’ils possèdent une esthétique de leur chant, bien que celle-ci ne soit jamais explicitée et que cette esthétique reflète un système de pensée en lien avec leur vie agricole. Nous sommes toutefois consciente du fait que dégager une conception, un système de pensée qui relève de l’esthétique, en absence d’un discours direct qui porte sur cette dimension et en absence de théorisation constitue une entreprise complexe. Notre étude se concentre alors sur l’observation et l’analyse d’attitudes linguistiques – tautologies, tentatives d’échapper aux questions du chercheur, etc. – qui, bien qu’apparemment lointaine d’un discours esthétique direct, cache un système de pensée relié à la dimension endogène du beau et du plaisant.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".