Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selon Barbey d’Aurevilly, la prose de Flaubert est celle d’un « casseur de pierres ». Comment comprendre la complicité ainsi dénoncée entre le style comme « manière absolue de voir les choses » et la banalité du geste ouvrier et de la prose démocratique? L’article cherche à répondre à ce paradoxe en revenant à la solidarité première dénoncée par Platon entre la démocratie et la lettre muette/bavarde. À partir de là se définit la littérarité, en tant qu’opération spécifique de l’écriture dans le partage du sensible qui structure l’ordre des activités humaines. La littérature, comme absolutisation de l’acte d’écrire, déliée des normes de la représentation, entre alors dans un rapport contradictoire de solidarité et de conflit avec le « désordre » de la littérarité démocratique. L’article propose, autour de Balzac, Flaubert et Mallarmé, quelques repères pour analyser cette configuration.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".