Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article explore la manière dont le trauma ruine la possibilité même d’un récit tout en le rendant nécessaire à la fois. Tout d’abord, un survol de l’histoire de la notion de trauma et des théories du trauma montre que c’est l’incompréhensibilité d’un événement pour un sujet qui fait de cet événement un trauma. Cette incompréhensibilité met le sujet aux prises avec une double contrainte (double bind) : d’une part, l’incompréhensibilité de l’événement traumatique pousse le sujet à tenter de l’intégrer dans son histoire psychique par sa mise en récit, tandis que, d’autre part, cette incompréhensibilité constitue cela même qui empêche la mise en récit de l’événement. Le témoignage semble être le seul genre de récit qui puisse se faire à partir de cette double contrainte, comme le révèle l’analyse de témoignages de camps de concentration nazis (notamment ceux de Charlotte Delbo et de Jorge Semprun) dans la dernière partie de l’article.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".