Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie le développement d’un nouveau genre journalistique à la Belle Époque : des articles très travaillés et souvent minuscules qui paraissent en une de quotidiens comme Le Figaro, L’Écho de Paris ou Le Gaulois. Certains écrivains, comme Jules Renard, Étienne Grosclaude, Alfred Capus ou Alphonse Allais, s’en font une spécialité et en vivent. Ces articles se définissent à la fois par leur caractère bref et par leur humour souvent fondé sur l’absurde et l’incongru. Il s’agira de montrer que, loin d’avoir uniquement une fonction de divertissement, ces textes intègrent les mutations du système de l’information, le passage à la chose vue et les exigences d’une écriture de l’actualité. Mais, ce faisant, ils prennent aussi à revers et à défaut la grande machinerie de l’information par ces petites déflagrations ironiques et poétiques installées au sein même de ses colonnes d’actualité.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".