MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1600790796 · doi:10.7202/009121ar

La métamorphose (ou la vision) de Denis Diderot

2004· article· fr· W1600790796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michèle Bocquillon

Bibliographic record

VenueTangence · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diderot se pose en rival de Greuze dans le commentaire du tableau Jeune fille envoyant un baiser […] (Salon de 1765). En effet, Diderot repeint le tableau sur la toile de ses affects et de cette création fantasmatique surgit son désir pour la jeune fille à laquelle il s’identifie. Il voudrait l’ « absorber », mais se laisse lui-même « absorber » par la scène et s’insinue ainsi de l’autre côté du cadre. Fidèle au principe de la ligne ondoyante qui est, selon lui, signe de vie, Diderot, tel « le serpent qui vit », se coule par l’entremise de la caresse de son regard sur le corps féminin. La jeune fille, quant à elle, manipule de façon suggestive une lettre qu’elle vient de recevoir, lettre dont Diderot néglige toute la portée. En effet, cette lettre est le substitut du rival réel et invisible de Diderot : celui qui, au-delà de la position du spectateur dans l’espace, se trouve suspendu au bout du regard de la jeune femme, qui est le seul être qu’elle daigne regarder. Cette lettre palpée de manière significative en dit long sur son désir à elle (elle-même objet de désir) qui est « hors d’oeuvre » : la lettre devient à la fois métonymie du corps absent de l’aimé et métaphore de son corps à elle, présent dans toute la force de son désir.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTangenceSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207