Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although their objects of analysis are different, traditional textual criticism and the classical archival theory of arrangement deal with issues of authenticity. Textual criticism aims to restore a literary text as closely as possible to its original, authentic form, while archival arrangement seeks to reconstruct the “authentic,” meaning original, order of a body of records. In both fields, originality and authenticity are closely tied to the identification and stabilization of final authorial intentions. Over the last twenty years, new streams of textual scholarship have emerged, which challenge the theory of final authorial intentions and extend the scope of textual criticism beyond literary works to cultural texts of various kinds. This scholarship argues that cultural texts – whether literary, artistic, or architectural – are not fixed or stabilized at one moment in time; rather, they are in a continuous state of becoming, as they are resituated and recontextualized in different environments and by different authorities. This article explores how issues of authenticity, originality, and intentionality have been discussed in the context of traditional textual criticism, some of the ways in which new streams of textual scholarship are challenging that tradition, and the implications of that challenge for the archival theory of arrangement. RESUME Meme si leurs objets d’analyse sont differents, la critique textuelle traditionnelle et la theorie classique du classement archivistique traitent de questions relatives a l’authenticite. La critique textuelle vise a rapprocher le texte litteraire le plus pres possible de sa forme originale et authentique, alors que le classement archivistique tente de reconstituer l’ordre « authentique » – c’est-a-dire l’ordre original – d’un ensemble de documents. Dans les deux cas, l’originalite et l’authenticite sont intimement liees a l’identification et a la determination de l’intention finale de l’auteur. Au cours des vingt dernieres annees, on a assiste a l’emergence de nouveaux courants de theorie textuelle qui ont remis en question la theorie de l’intention finale de l’auteur et qui ont etendu la portee de la critique textuelle au-dela des textes litteraires pour inclure des textes culturels de toute sorte. Ces courants soutiennent que le texte culturel – que ce soit un texte litteraire, artistique ou architectural – n’est pas fixe ou stable a un moment precis dans le temps, mais qu’il est dans un etat continuel de devenir, etant reinterprete (« resituated ») et « recontextualise » selon differents environnements et par differents experts. Ce texte explore comment ont ete traitees les questions d’authenticite, d’originalite et d’intention dans le contexte de la critique textuelle traditionnelle, il examine certaines facons dont les nouveaux courants de critique textuelle ont conteste cette tradition et il presente les repercussions de cette nouvelle perspective sur la theorie archivistique du classement.
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 | 0.040 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".