Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il existe diverses lectures d'Histoire d'Ode Pauline Réage, alias Dominique Aury, dont peu sont vraiment sensibles au chef-d'œuvre littéraire que ce texte difficile constitue. La critique féministe, en particulier, s'est violemment attaquée à ce roman « scandaleux » dont la thématique de surface, mettant en scène une jeune femme qui s'enchaîne, volontairement rappelons-le, à de hommes qui font d'elle une esclave sexuelle, a effectivement de quoi alimenter les suspicions les plus légitimes quant à sa misogynie. Cependant je propose de lire ce texte avec une rigueur certes déjà amorcée par certains universitaires, mais néanmoins nouvelle dans le traitement, à la fois du fond et de la forme du roman. Je voudrais, en particulier, me concentrer sur la voix narrative du texte et démontrer par là-même que la domination actorielle de la narration est en réalité la métaphore de la domination de l'actrice O dans ladiégèse, ce qui va, bien entendu, à rencontre des interprétations féministes d'Histoire d'O.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".