La naissance d’un mythe. La nouvelle revue française dans le champ littéraire de la Belle Époque
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’heure du centenaire de La NRF , Maaike Koffeman retourne aux origines de cette revue légendaire pour montrer comment elle a, dès le départ, posé les fondements de son hégémonie ultérieure. La qualité des textes publiés ne suffit pas à expliquer cette réussite : il faut également prendre en compte l’organisation matérielle de la revue et de sa maison d’édition. Les correspondances des rédacteurs montrent qu’ils ont employé toutes sortes de stratégies pour acquérir du capital symbolique et obtenir une position dominante dans le champ littéraire. Une étude systématique des textes publiés dans la revue, combinée avec une analyse sociologique de son fonctionnement, permet de mieux comprendre comment La NRF a pu devenir « la rose des vents de la littérature française » (François Mauriac).
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".