MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1899865775 · doi:10.7202/1016851ar

Le bouffon, le zombie et l’idiot. Trois figures de la folie politique et sociale sur les scènes contemporaines

2013· article· fr· W1899865775 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mireille Losco-Lena

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdiotHumanitiesArtZombie

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article propose une approche sociocritique du comique dans le théâtre contemporain à travers l’examen de trois figures de la folie – politique et sociale – présentes dans un corpus de pièces écrites en Europe depuis une quinzaine d’années, et dessinant les contours d’un théâtre des fous à l’usage de notre temps. Ces trois figures, le « bouffon », le « zombie » et l’« idiot », mettent en lumière des problématiques différentes de la société occidentale contemporaine. Le bouffon, et plus particulièrement l’« ubuesque », est la figure du grand écart entre le pouvoir et l’indignité de celui qui l’exerce ; il renvoie aux inquiétudes européennes relatives à la fragilité de la démocratie. Le zombie est relié à la société de consommation : il est le vivant déjà mort parce que mortellement aliéné à la marchandise, et dont la vie a perdu consistance, authenticité et subjectivité. L’idiot, enfin, par son inadaptation foncière au monde et son improbable naïveté, entretient un commerce minimal avec les représentations dominantes et, par cela même, semble le seul « fou » du théâtre contemporain à savoir encore manifester de la puissance de vie.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littéraires→Same topicHistorical and Scientific Studies→French-language works237,207→