Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’inverse de leurs prédécesseurs, qui n’y voyaient qu’accident de l’histoire, les sociologues Pierre Bourdieu et Nathalie Heinich ont accordé une importance majeure à la Bohème littéraire et artistique dans le processus de constitution d’un champ littéraire autonome, pour l’un, et d’un régime de singularité, pour l’autre. Mais n’ont-ils pas accrédité, ce faisant, une représentation de la Bohème qui prévalait déjà dans les histoires littéraires les plus traditionnelles ? Sous la plume des frères Goncourt, en 1857, on découvre une Bohème à la fonction et à l’aspect tout différents : la Bohème apparaît ici munie d’un pouvoir dévorant (et non plus sympathiquement marginale), vénale (et non plus amoureuse de sa pauvreté), bref symptomatique d’un mal littéraire moderne. Analysant ce portrait en regard de la posture des frères Goncourt et de leur idéologie d’une littérature pure, cet article interroge, au-delà, le statut des prises de position des acteurs en tant que documents sociologiques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".