Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certains historiens modernes de la rhétorique mésestiment le rôle de l'éloquence : ils oublient que l' elocutio , exercice verbal de la persuasion, était considérée comme la fonction la plus importante. Au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance, la rhétorique n'avait rien d'une théorie abstraite : il s'agissait d'un outil. Son ignorance du rôle vital de la rhétorique au XVIe siècle fait de l'ouvrage de Wilbur Samuel Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England . 1500-1700 , un exemple typique de cette approche historique inadéquate. Thomas Whitfield Baldwin rétablit la perspective : tous les écrivains de l'époque avaient étudié l' elocutio et appris systématiquement par cur les tropes et les figures, en Angleterre aussi bien qu'en Europe. La Renaissance, qui redécouvrait les classiques, prenait la rhétorique au sérieux; à la suite d'Isocrate et de Cicéron, elle considérait la parole comme le fondement essentiel de la vita activa , et soulignait sa contribution à la bonne marche de la société.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".