Pour une approche géopoétique du récit de voyage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les bases du mouvement initié par l’Institut international de géopoétique. La dimension transdisciplinaire de ce champ de recherche et de création, fondé par Kenneth White en 1989, de même que la prédominance de certains principes tels que le nomadisme, le dehors et la critique radicale, rejoignent plusieurs préoccupations propres au récit de voyage, situé au croisement de la littérature et de la géographie. L’approche géopoétique ouvre la réflexion aussi bien sur le pôle poétique, soit le rapport intrinsèque entre le voyage vécu et l’écriture du voyage, que sur le pôle de la lecture, qui implique de prendre en considération la subjectivité du lecteur et son propre rapport au monde. L’examen de certains récits des Écrits sur le sable d’Isabelle Eberhardt (appartenant à la fois aux littératures suisse, française et maghrébine) donne l’occasion d’explorer différentes notions importantes en géopoétique telles que le paysage, la polysensorialité et le mouvement.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".