Bibliographic record
Abstract
En partant des travaux récents sur la notion fort complexe de voix (émission sonore, pensée silencieuse, mode d’existence, et « souffle » créatif), l’article se propose d’examiner deux romans, Consuelo de George Sand (1844) et Loin de Médine (1991) d’Assia Djebar. L’aventure littéraire des deux romancières prend son origine dans la tradition lyrique (qui remonte à Platon et passe par Rousseau), et s’articule sur le mode de la perte conformément à la tradition (occidentale et orientale) incarnée par de nombreuses figures féminines (Shéhérazade, Ondine, Orphée, Marsyas, Mélusine). Les deux femmes croient au pouvoir de la parole, libératrice, unificatrice et re-fondatrice du monde plein des origines. Cette foi commune se traduit par l’omniprésence de la voix (organe, schème et métaphore de l’écriture) et l’attention portée aux vibrations du corps. Les deux fictions contreviennent aux lois traditionnelles de la mimesis proposant ainsi une autre voie (voix) de l’engagement (éthique et esthétique).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".