Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à décrire un aspect de la narrativité qui constitue un impensé de la théorie narratologique « classique » en France durant la période structuraliste. L’accent est mis sur les liens existant entre passion et narration. Il s’agit de mettre en évidence la dimension passive, aussi bien de l’action narrée que de la narration elle-même (dans sa forme dialogique). Le versant cognitif de l’interprétation ne devrait jamais être considéré séparément des questions relatives à la tension narrative, à la curiosité et au suspense, qui représentent les traits passifs de l’actualisation de l’intrigue, mettant en évidence l’incertitude caractérisant le processus d’anticipation du récit. À travers l’exploration de cet aspect de la narrativité, la compréhension de sa fonction anthropologique peut être réévaluée et approfondie, et la conception que nous nous faisons de la « mise en intrigue » peut être discutée après sa résurgence dans la critique narratologique sous l’impulsion des travaux de Paul Ricoeur.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".