Deux aventures éditoriales à l’époque de l’affaire Dreyfus : Stock et les Cahiers de la Quinzaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la bataille qui opposa les partisans de la révision du procès de Dreyfus et ses adversaires, les milieux éditoriaux jouèrent un rôle décisif et influencèrent les termes du débat polémique. Alors que les dreyfusards étaient marginalisés dans la presse à grand tirage et minoritaires sur le terrain de l’opinion, ils se dotèrent de structures d’édition indépendantes qui leur procurèrent une entière liberté d’expression. Ces structures éditoriales permirent aux dreyfusards d’opposer aux caricatures et aux articles virulents des antidreyfusards des essais, des livres dans lesquels ils pouvaient déployer des réflexions argumentées. Alors que Stock avait lancé sans retenue sa maison d’édition dans la bataille, Péguy allait quant à lui pousser jusqu’à l’extrême l’idéal politique qu’il avait défendu pendant l’Affaire. Ses Cahiers de la Quinzaine, conçus selon un idéal socialiste et affranchis de tout souci de rentabilité, allaient lui permettre de poursuivre jusqu’à l’épuisement sa vision, sa mémoire et sa théorie du dreyfusisme.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".