MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143037263 · doi:10.7202/007559ar

Espaces arcadiques

2004· article· fr· W2143037263 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Françoise Lavocat

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesArcadiaThe RenaissanceArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article examine quelques réinterprétations du mythe d’Alphée et d’Aréthuse depuis l’Arcadia de Sannazar (1504) jusqu’aux opéras-ballets du début du XVIIIe siècle. Le motif des eaux, — plus particulièrement celui de la légende ovidienne de la course du fleuve amoureux sous la mer, depuis le cour du Péloponnèse jusqu’en Sicile —, a joué un grand rôle dans l’invention du mythe pastoral ; elle a permis de figurer le décentrement, l’idéalisation et l’universalisation de l’Arcadie géographique. L’Arcadia de Sannazar, où le trajet du narrateur, entre sa terre natale et l’Arcadie, suit la route sous-marine de l’Alphée, marque un infléchissement majeur du sens symbolique de la petite fable hydrographique. Lorsqu’elle est transposée sur la scène de théâtre, au début du XVIIe siècle, l’allégorie du lien invisible et de la profondeur se perd, tandis que l’Arcadie se résout de plus en plus à un pur décor. À travers les métamorphoses de la légende, il s’agit de montrer comment l’espace pastoral passe, à la fin de la Renaissance, d’un mode de représentation allégorique au régime de la fiction avant d’être recyclé dans l’univers de la féerie : ce qui se joue dans ce passage, c’est la disparition de l’Arcadie comme métaphore.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littérairesSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207