Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie les rapports entre rire et roman au xviiie siècle tels qu’ils se jouent dans la parodie, à la lumière de Tristram Shandy. Le chef-d’oeuvre humoristique de Sterne est ici envisagé comme un roman éminemment représentatif de son temps, malgré son indiscutable singularité, et sans doute par le biais de son usage original de la parodie sous tous ses aspects. On souhaite montrer que la parodie, dans son rapport avec l’écriture romanesque, repose moins sur un rire lié à l’exclusion satirique que sur un rire d’inclusion humoristique, où se joue notamment le sens de l’intertextualité cervantine, si importante pour le roman du xviiie siècle ; ce faisant, on fait aussi le point sur la distinction parfois trop schématique entre les notions anglaises de « romance » et « novel » : le rire d’inclusion lié à la parodie est en effet un des éléments contribuant à une vision du roman du xviiie siècle comme intégrant toujours à des degrés divers ces deux tendances apparemment antithétiques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".