Éléments d’analyse du paratexte théâtral : le cas du programme de théâtre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quelles sont les composantes du programme de théâtre, dans la perspective d’une théorie générale du paratexte théâtral? Après avoir repoussé les catégories de Genette concernant le paratexte littéraire, l’auteur de l’étude propose un autre modèle suivant lequel le programme est divisé en trois champs éditoriaux, sous la responsabilité d’une unique instance auctoriale (le producteur du spectacle) : le co-texte, l’avant-texte et le métatexte. Un tableau synoptique permet en outre de repérer une stratification de ce type particulier de paratexte, selon que les éléments (textuels et/ou visuels) portent sur le spectacle lui-même, sur le producteur (le personnel artistique, technique et administratif) ou sur la diffusion et la réception de la production. La prise en compte de la structure éditoriale du programme de théâtre constitue de la sorte un préalable méthodologique à toute analyse proprement discursive de son contenu.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".