La poétique du fil : Odes funambulesques de Théodore de Banville
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La question de la modernité trouve chez Banville son moment de réflexion dans la préface des Odes funambulesques, lesquelles sont significativement publiées chez le même éditeur et la même année (1857) que les Fleurs du mal. Par des voies qui lui sont propres, Banville rejoint Baudelaire et Gautier dans l’expression horrifiée du monde capitaliste et bourgeois : la poésie est pour lui un tremplin vers un univers de Beauté, et il revient au poète d’adopter l’attitude du funambule qui, en fragile équilibre, regarde de haut la pitoyable comédie humaine. De manière originale, s’inspirant du modèle de Daumier, il propose dans cette préface-manifeste d’importer les techniques de la caricature dans le langage poétique. Funambulesque et caricaturale, la poésie mettra en place un dispositif de pur langage conjurant toute compromission avec le réel. De là le surinvestissement dans la forme ; de là aussi, l’introduction de l’humour dans la poésie — point sur lequel Banville retrouve à nouveau Baudelaire.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".