MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1771109680 · doi:10.7202/1012015ar

La résurrection du passé ou le Second Faust revisité

2012· article· fr· W1771109680 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie-Hélène Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesPhilosophyFAUSTArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le prolongement de l’étude que Georges Poulet a consacrée à l’influence du Second Faust sur le fantastique de Gautier, l’article montre l’empreinte durable et profonde que ce texte a laissée également dans l’oeuvre du critique d’art. Les échos du texte traduit et commenté par Nerval se retrouvent aussi bien dans la « rétrospection évocatrice », qui rend compte des tableaux d’Ingres, de Meissonier, de Gustave Moreau ou des peintres de genre historique, que dans la réorientation esthétique d’un certain nombre de notions héritées du romantisme, comme celle de couleur locale, d’intuition ou d’ascèse de l’artiste. Les leçons du classicisme weimarien convergent non seulement avec l’image que Gautier a imposée de la perfection ingriste, mais aussi avec son plaidoyer en faveur de la sculpture, avec sa défense de la « forme abstraite » et la prédilection de plus en plus exclusive que ses Salons accordèrent au modèle antique sous le Second Empire. Ces multiples convergences confirment l’ambition prêtée à Gautier par Bergerat, d’être le « Goethe français », en même temps qu’elles éclairent l’originalité et la cohérence d’une critique et d’une esthétique trop souvent jugée opportunistes ou rétrogrades.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.022
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littérairesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207