Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose un survol des livres, des articles et des critiques (et lettres) écrits sur Lord Byron et son oeuvre de son vivant et peu de temps après sa mort, soit de 1807 à 1830 environ, de sorte à déterminer à quel point les contemporains de Byron le trouvaient « sublime ». Walter Scott, en faisant le compte rendu de Childe Harold 4, affirmait avec enthousiasme qu’il s’agissait de « la poésie la plus sublime », mais d’autres, comme William Hazlitt, étaient d’avis que « l’auteur de Childe Harold et de Don Juan est… un poseur, encore qu’il soit provoquant et sublime ». En parlant de Don Juan, John Wilson Croker s’exclamait quant à lui : « Quelle sublimité! quelle légèreté! quelle audace! quelle tendresse! quelle majesté! quelle insignifiance! quelle variété! quel ennui!1 ». Ma discussion sur un grand nombre de ces jugements sur l’oeuvre de Byron par ses contemporains nous permettra de determiner si le terme « sublime » définit adéquatement l’esprit de la poésie de Byron, surtout ce « sublime » tel qu’il a été compris par Longin, Burke et d’autres.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".