Un projet contrarié. L’histoire de la littérature contemporaine française au tournant du xxe siècle1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au tournant du xxe siècle, alors que l’histoire littéraire se transforme profondément et s’essaie à de nouvelles approches, alors que s’opposent des visions contradictoires de la fonction de la critique littéraire et que le lectorat s’élargit et se diversifie, il semble qu’un goût pour le contemporain s’affirme de manière relativement consensuelle au sein de la discipline. Le consensus est d’autant plus étonnant que l’ambition d’une histoire du présent est paradoxale et qu’elle contrevient à une certaine idée de l’histoire littéraire comme conservatrice. L’article propose d’observer le sort que les historiens de la littérature du tournant du xxe siècle ont réservé dans leurs histoires à la littérature de leur temps, et de répondre à quelques-unes des interrogations que cette pratique contradictoire soulève. L’observation des pratiques mais aussi des justifications des premiers historiens modernes de la littérature quant à l’étude du contemporain sera ainsi l’occasion de saisir plus largement les préoccupations et les principes de l’histoire littéraire au moment où elle se fonde et s’institue, se faisant alors la chambre d’échos des inquiétudes nationales et identitaires de la France du dernier xixe siècle.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".