Accords et faux raccords entre les conceptions du cinéma de Jean-Luc Godard et de Gilles Deleuze
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La réalisation des Histoire(s) du cinéma de Godard (1985-1998) est pour ainsi dire contemporaine de la rédaction des livres de Deleuze sur le cinéma (L’Image-mouvement, 1983 ; L’Image-temps, 1985). Ces travaux, qui se veulent à la fois bilan et programme, apparaissent comme les plus achevés du genre à ce jour. L’auteur du présent article compare ces conceptions du cinéma en montrant d’abord en quoi l’approche deleuzienne se distingue des méthodes phénoménologique et sémiologique. Il circonscrit ensuite la place de Godard dans les études de Deleuze et identifie les différentes fonctions attribuées par Godard au cinéma. Ce qui lui permet de dégager le motif de l’opposition entre l’esthétique godardienne de la rédemption fondée sur une mission de sauvetage de l’humanité, et la machination universelle pensée par Deleuze à travers des moyens d’expression cinématographique toujours plus adéquats à l’univers de la variation continue.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".