L’écriture des interventions narratoriales dans Melyador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The narrative voice of Jean Froissart’s romance Melyador is characterized by its omnipresence and by the originality and the delicacy of its manifestations. In order to ascertain how Froissart handles this repertoire reputedly limited by tradition, the object of this study is to examine his interventions on the microstructural level, taking into account the various functions they perform in the text. It appears that the formulas and the syntactic forms employed originate from the verse romance, from the epic poem, from the narrative but also the historiographic prose. Is thus exposed a tension between the writing and the oral modes that could be defined as orality founded on solemn writing. Despite some borrowings from tradition, the writing of narratorial interventions is not set. Concerned about variety and lexical as well as syntactic research, the author combined ancient formulas, at times of prosodic function, with less stereotypical, not to say openly personal, expressions. It emerges that the narrator is deeply involved in his story, nearly present physically and engaged in a constant dialogue with the audience, on a conversational mode that is lively, elegant and not devoid of humour.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".