Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si le genre romanesque n’a pas bonne presse chez les écrivains français aujourd’hui, pour Éric Chevillard, Pierre Senges et Antoine Volodine, écrire contre le roman, c’est écrire tout contre. Parce qu’ils sont romanciers malgré eux dès lors que, pour reprendre une affirmation provocatrice du premier, « bientôt, le terme roman sera définitivement devenu synonyme de livre », mais surtout parce que les formes qu’ils inventent constituent des variations sur le genre romanesque qu’ils malmènent pour mieux le renouveler. Explorant les rapports qu’entretiennent roman et antiroman à la lumière de cette pratique contrapuntique, l’article montre que ce couple notionnel ne coïncide qu’incidemment avec celui qui oppose le romance au novel , et que c’est l’illusion mimétique qui constitue le véritable enjeu pour l’antiroman, par-delà ses manifestations singulières au cours du temps. Ce déplacement permet de reconsidérer la cible de l’antiroman comme un modèle abstrait dont l’antiroman trace les contours en creux, expurgeant ainsi les formes sclérosées qui tendent à figer le genre romanesque, comme autant de mues, afin de maintenir le vague du roman, qui le garde toujours vivant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".