Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur deux aspects importants. Le premier est le sens du sublime depuis Longin jusqu’à la résurrection de Longin par Boileau, soit le sublime que connaissait Byron (pas celui de Kant); le second concerne la citation suivante, de Byron : « c’est le sublime de cette sorte d’écriture-là1 ». Boileau et Longin soulignent ce qui est noble et qui élève l’esprit, tandis que le « cette sorte-là » de Byron est humble, contingent et fondé sur des bases empiriques. Je ferai valoir que la phrase « sorte d’écriture » lie les deux aspects, car même si Byron saisit intuitivement le nouveau sublime dont il fait la promotion tout en soulignant le burlesque en parlant du « terrible désir de vous y plonger2 », il n’associe pas au sublime un modèle de conscience mais bien un type d’écriture. C’est dans l’abysse du langage et de la véritable profondeur ontologique que veut plonger Byron. Je soutiendrai que la clé à cette singularité se trouve dans la position religieuse particulière de Byron.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".