Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article attempts to analyze the definition of "electronic literature" as given by the Electronic Literature Organization and to understand the relationship between electronic literature and digital literature. The thesis defended here is that this change of adjective hides a change in the theoretical status of the object that it attempts to define. The definition of electronic literature once concentrated on the tools used in the production of literary works and the critical analysis concentrating on the objects produced with the aid of new technologies. The move to the adjective "digital" marks a change in perception: now, from this perspective, the challenge is no longer to study works produced thanks to computers, but to understand the new status of literature in the age of the digital. To demonstrate this thesis, the article proposes to analyze one recent literary example: the 1984 trilogy by Eric Plamondon. Cet article essaie d’analyser la définition de "littérature électronique" donnée par l’Electronic Literature Organization et de comprendre le rapport entre littérature électronique et littérature numérique. La thèse défendue ici est que ce changement d’adjectif cache un changement du statut théorique de l’objet que l’on essaie de définir. Il y a encore quelques années, la définition de la littérature électronique s’axait sur les outils utilisés pour produire les œuvres littéraires et les analyses critiques se concentraient alors sur des objets produits à l’aide de nouvelles technologies. Le passage à l’adjectif "numérique" détermine un changement de perception : désormais, on se réfère davantage à un phénomène culturel qu’aux outils technologiques et, dans cette perspective, l’enjeu n’est plus d’étudier les œuvres littéraires produites grâce à l’informatique, mais de comprendre le nouveau statut de la littérature à l’époque du numérique. Pour démontrer cette thèse, l’article propose l’analyse d’un exemple littéraire récent : la trilogie 1984 d’Éric Plamondon.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".