Bibliographic record
Abstract
« Pochades », « Bigarrures », « Coups de lancettes »… L’épigramme en 1830 investit la prose journalistique, de la manière lapidaire et économe qui constitue sa marque de fabrique. Notre article vise à présenter les ressorts comiques et critiques de cette forme brève. À décrire la rhétorique du sous-entendu qui la fonde, contraintes législatives « aidant ». À la réinscrire, aussi, dans le cadre de l’histoire culturelle et politique du trait d’esprit : les plumes alertes et acérées du Figaro ou de La Caricature font passer dans l’opposition cet apanage de la culture aristocratique qu’étaient, chez l’honnête homme du xviie et du xviiie siècles, la raillerie et le persiflage. Par-delà son caractère divertissant, l’éloquence y devient corrosive. Les circonstances (historiques) et le support (périodique) de l’épigramme font s’actualiser et se réinventer l’éthique et l’esthétique du satiriste, tout en distinction et en connivence. Corrélat méthodologique : les formes ainsi prises par la satire prouvent la nécessité, s’il le fallait, d’ancrer la pragmatique du discours dans l’histoire.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".