Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article pose la question des rapports particuliers entre histoire culturelle et projet biographique. Il explore les différents liens entre les deux domaines. Les textes relevant de l’écriture de soi sont des sources privilégiées de la biographie. Ces sources doivent être réintégrées dans leur contexte culturel pour être bien comprises. L’auteur d’un journal intime, d’une correspondance ou d’un journal de voyage se décrit et décrit le monde qui l’entoure avec les outils mentaux et stylistiques qui lui ont été fournis par son éducation, son milieu, sa génération. La question du genre est centrale dans cette perspective. Par ailleurs, ces sources décrivent des pratiques qui appartiennent à l’histoire culturelle dans ses différentes dimensions. Elles donnent des éclairages originaux sur la vie culturelle envisagée au sens étroit du terme (lecture, théâtre, vie musicale), mais aussi sur la dimension anthropologique de la culture : de l’éducation des enfants à la sémiologie du costume, et des pratiques de loisir à la vie religieuse.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".