Bibliographic record
Abstract
En abordant la question de la formation du lecteur de romans au xviiie siècle, cet article cherche à montrer que l’héritage de la poétique classique, qui traverse l’enseignement des belles-lettres et le discours critique sur le roman, est non pas un frein au développement de la forme romanesque, mais un élément essentiel dans le développement de la culture du roman. Si le roman occupe une place marginale dans l’enseignement des belles-lettres, sa lecture n’y fait pas moins l’objet d’une certaine forme d’initiation dans le cadre de la transmission d’une culture plus vaste de la fiction. À travers la lecture de genres comme l’épopée et surtout la fable, le lecteur développe des pratiques qui intégreront, par la suite, la forme romanesque. Loin d’être les échos d’une poétique dépassée, les références à ces formes et à la poétique classique dans le discours sur le genre romanesque contribuent à ce transfert d’horizon de lecture. Équivalent de la formation « scolaire » moderne, cette formation des lecteurs est un préalable à la revendication d’une lecture romanesque plus autonome, qui accompagne l’affirmation du genre.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".