Comment dire l’expérience des camps : fonctions transmissives et réparatrices du récit testimonial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les témoignages des camps répondent à la fois à une fonction de transmission de la mémoire et à un besoin de réparation identitaire de la part du rescapé. Les témoins ont rattaché l’une et l’autre fonction à l’élaboration d’un idiolecte, qu’ils distinguent du langage parlé au camp et de la langue de leur lectorat. D’une part, l’idiolecte du camp est mis à distance en vertu de la recomposition de l’identité du témoin et en vue de faciliter la compréhension du récit par le public. D’autre part, les témoins isolent leur propre vision du monde de celle des lecteurs et tentent de défendre leur expérience contre une récupération par des idéologies extérieures. L’idiolecte testimonial constitue dès lors un cheminement prudent entre la culture-source du camp et la culture-cible du lectorat. Ce procédé s’applique aussi au niveau de la « mise en récit » du témoignage.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".