Gossip as a Channel for Circulating Subversive Truth: In Heym's The King David Report, the GDR and the Jardin du Luxembourg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la Chronique du roi David (1991) , Stefan Heym (1913-2001) propose une perspective favorable sur le potin, nonobstant la censure biblique de cette activité (ex : Proverbe 11:13). La réécriture satirique de Heym de l'histoire biblique se concentre sur le personnage d’Ethan, un écrivain-historien nommé par le roi Salomon pour composer un rapport officiel sur la vie et l’arrivée au pouvoir du roi David. À un moment donné les deux fils d’Ethan, Sem et Sheleph, reviennent du marché et racontent à Ethan certaines rumeurs «savoureuses» qu'ils y ont entendues. Ces rumeurs, tandis qu’elles sont un peu exagérées et embellies, fournissent toutefois des aperçus de la situation politique qui sont beaucoup plus fidèles à la vérité que les inventions des porte-parole officiels. Pour justifier le portrait littéraire de Heym du potin comme une voie pour communiquer la vérité subversive dans les régimes autoritaires, je cite la recherche historique systématique de Robert Darnton au sujet des voies diverses pour communiquer les nouvelles de Paris au dix-huitième siècle (Darnton, 2000).In The King David Report (1972), Stefan Heym (1913-2001) offers a favorable view of gossip, notwithstanding biblical censuring of that activity (e.g. Proverb 11:13). Heym's satirical re-telling of the biblical story focuses on the character of Ethan, a writer-historian appointed by King Solomon to compose an official report on the life and rise to power of King David. At one point Ethan's two sons, Shem and Sheleph, come back from the market, telling Ethan of some "juicy" rumors they heard there. These rumors, while using some exaggerations and added embellishments, nevertheless provide insights into the political situation much more faithful to the truth than the fabrications of official spokespersons. To substantiate Heym's literary portrayal of gossip as a channel for communicating subversive truth in authoritarian regimes, I cite Robert Darnton's systematic historical research into the diverse channels for communicating news in Paris of the eighteenth century (Darnton, 2000).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".