Moby Dick et Vingt mille lieues sous les mers : les géographies de l’imaginaire au cœur de la complexité.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il est habituel de voir évoquer l'imaginaire marin sur le mode de l'archétype. Or l'objet de cet article est de suggérer que cet imaginaire peut générer des modes de représentation du monde marin très différents d'une culture à une autre. Si pour les Français la mer semble constituer une figure du dehors, une frontière aux marges du monde habité (paradigme des mondes clos), pour les Anglo-saxons en revanche, elle se présenterait comme un monde de lignes qui s'affranchissent de l'opposition terre-mer et étendent la civilisation des hommes au monde dans son entier. Ces paradigmes infiltreraient les regards à tous les niveaux, mêlant l'économique et le religieux. C'est cette hypothèse que je souhaiterais conforter en montrant comment elle peut structurer la lecture de deux célèbres romans maritimes : Moby Dick d'Herman Melville et Vingt mille lieues sous les mers de Jules Verne.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".