Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse à la rupture du lien entre l’amour et le chant qui informait la poésie lyrique, en soulignant comment cette disjonction contribue simultanément à la reconfiguration de l’érotique des romanciers et à l’invention de la forme romanesque. Dès lors que la voix de l’amant-poète le cède à la voix narrative, la nouvelle forme « en roman » engage avec la musique un autre dialogue où l’amour change de forme et de sens. Les plus anciens textes traduits « en roman » ne sont pas seulement des témoins de ces transformations; ils expriment la tension qui existe entre les deux modes d’expression de l’amour qui se partagent alors la littérature vernaculaire : le chant et le récit. En devenant la voix désincarnée du conteur, voire du conte lui-même, le romancier prend le risque de la mimesis : c’est-à-dire celui de donner un corps aux voix du désir, de les soumettre aux rythmes du temps, et donc à la mort.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".