Les prix littéraires pour la jeunesse, entre médiation et médiatisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La prolifération des prix littéraires affecte autant la littérature que le secteur de la jeunesse. Et ce, pour des raisons différentes. Dans le premier cas, il semble que la création de nouveaux prix soit une réponse aux crises récurrentes qui frappent cette institution vieille de plus d’un siècle. En revanche, les prix pour la jeunesse prolifèrent sans qu’on ne constate à leur propos de polémique. Loin de la médiatisation exacerbée qui touche des prix littéraires corrompus aux modes de sélection arbitraires et commerciaux, les prix pour la jeunesse, jouissant d’une faible notoriété, mènent un travail de médiation approfondi qui apporte une contribution efficace à la découverte de la littérature. Ils privilégient la phase de lecture, de débat et de confrontation des points de vue, favorisent une proximité avec les auteurs et valent donc bien plus par les processus qu’ils mettent en oeuvre que par l’affichage de leurs palmarès.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".