La solitude du discours amoureux aujourd’hui. Réflexions à partir de Roland Barthes et une critique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".