Raison et déraison dans la Lettre de Lord Chandos de Hofmannsthal (suite)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude se propose trois objectifs. En premier lieu, elle aborde le texte de Hofmannsthal d’une manière traditionnelle afin de montrer les limites de cette approche. En second lieu, elle s’efforce d’appliquer les hypothèses avancées par la sémiotique tensive (Fontanille-Zilberberg), hypothèses qui consistent pour l’essentiel dans la grammaticalisation de la circulation en discours des valences intensives et extensives. Enfin, une leçon émerge, nous semble-t-il, peu à peu, à savoir que l’affectivité ne se tient pas à la périphérie du sens, mais en son coeur même et, pour le dire sans précaution, l’affectivité devient la clef de la rationalité de ce type de discours, c’est-à-dire ce qu’il y a à comprendre dans l’acte de la lecture.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".