Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans Qu’est-ce que la littérature?, Jean-Paul Sartre pourfend Julien Benda; il prend violemment à partie l’écrivain français, catalogué comme « l’écrivain le plus bourgeois du monde ». Le romancier américain en général et Richard Wright en particulier apparaissent, de leur côté, comme des prolétaires et des exploités qui ont un jour décidé de prendre la plume. Ils sont du coup érigés en modèles par excellence d’un héroïsme paradoxal du « n’importe qui ». Dès lors, comment expliquer que les hommes de lettres mis en scène par le philosophe existentialiste dans ses œuvres de fiction ne parviennent jamais à délaisser leur position d’intellectuels bourgeois afin de devenir « n’importe qui »? C’est en confrontant ces deux aspects apparemment contradictoires de l’œuvre sartrienne qu’on tentera de déterminer dans quelle mesure elle promeut ou non l’héroïsme de l’homme de lettres.AbstractIn Qu’est-ce que la littérature?, Jean-Paul Sartre lambasts Julien Benda; he takes violently position against the french writer, labeled « the world wide most bourgeois writer ». On the other hand, the american writer in general and Richard Wright in particular appear to be workers or exploited who decided one day to put pen to paper. They are therefore established as the models of a paradoxical «anybody»’s heroism. From this point, how can we explain that the writers and the intellectuals shown in the existentialist philosopher’s works of fiction are never able to quit their bourgeois position to become « anybody »? By the confrontation of those two seemingly contradictory aspects of Jean-Paul Sartre’s literary works, the author intends to determine how they do or do not promote a kind of writer’s heroism.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".