MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W18418173 · doi:10.22329/p.v6i2.3484

La solitude du discours amoureux aujourd’hui. Réflexions à partir de Roland Barthes et une critique

2011· article· fr· W18418173 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhaenEx · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophySolitudeSilenceArtLiteratureAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article offre une discussion de l’affirmation qui ouvrait en 1977 les Fragments d’un discours amoureux de Roland Barthes, selon laquelle le discours amoureux se trouvait dans une condition d’extrême solitude. Afin de comprendre cette affirmation, on commence par un aperçu des caractéristiques du discours amoureux, pour montrer en quelle mesure son incohérence et sa fragmentation lui sont constitutives. Ensuite, on analyse le projet barthésien de restituer une dignité à ce discours et à l’expérience qu’il véhicule — de le soustraire à sa solitude. Pour conclure, on montre pourquoi certaines attaques moralisatrices contemporaines contre l’instabilité de l’expérience amoureuse actuelle, au lieu d’offrir un espace d’écoute au discours amoureux, finissent souvent par le réduire encore au silence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.268 · 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