Les soldats inconnus de la bataille romantique. La fonction des « petits romantiques » dans l'histoire littéraire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La métaphore de l’armée romantique sous-tend le discours tenu sur le romantisme par les chroniqueurs, mémorialistes et historiens de la littérature tout au long du XIXe siècle : dans cette armée, une place singulière est faite aux soldats inconnus ou oubliés qui seront ensuite regroupés sous l’appellation de « petits romantiques ». L’analyse de l’évolution de cette métaphore militaire dans le discours historique permet de voir comment l’histoire littéraire, telle qu’elle est théorisée et pratiquée au tournant des XIXe et XXe siècles, envisage le rôle des auteurs romantiques secondaires et, plus largement, quelle fonction elle octroie à la littérature mineure.AbstractThroughout the 19th century, the metaphor of the “Romantic army” was used by historians, chroniclers and critics of literature to underlie a certain discourse on French Romanticism: if the movement itself was an army, then its unknown and forgotten soldiers would be relegated to a special unit known as the “petits romantiques”. By analyzing the evolution of this military metaphor in the theory and practice of 19th and 20th century literary history, it’s possible to distinguish the role that history has assigned to second rate Romantic authors, as well as the overall place that has been granted to minor literature.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".