Les personnages <em>kawaii</em> et <em>moé</em>: figures ou figurines?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose d’explorer la question de l’envoûtement au sein de la culture des mangas et des dessins animés japonais contemporains. L’auteur s’interroge sur la possibilité de l’envoûtement à l’intérieur d’une culture de masse et commence par aborder la question du point de vue des jeux de regards avant d’examiner deux courants spécifiques de la culture otaku : le kawaii et le moé. Ayant constaté les facteurs qui s’opposent à l’envoûtement, tels que la nature collective de ces courants et le détachement qui semble les accompagner, l’auteure suggère alors que la figure envoûtante se situe justement dans sa propre impossibilité, dans la quête perpétuelle qui l’entoure.AbstractThis article aims to explore the question of bewitchment within contemporary manga and anime culture. The author questions the possibility of bewitchment within a mass culture, and starts off by tackling the question from the perspective of gaze exchanges, before examining two specific currents within otaku culture: kawaii and moe. After noting those factors which oppose bewitchment, such as the collective nature of these currents and the detachment which appears to go hand in hand with them, the author then suggests that the bewitching figure lies precisely in its own impossibility, in the perpetual quest which surrounds it.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".