Le réel, ce traître! L'échec du l'utophie dans « La Possibilité d'une île »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article cherche à comprendre les raisons de l’échec de l’utopie soumise dans La Possibilité d’une île, de l’aporie à laquelle mène inévitablement la mise en récit du réel. Partant des observations de Gilles Lipovetsky (L’Ère du vide, 1983) sur la vacuité de la société contemporaine et de la théorie du couple illusion/réel développée par Clément Rosset dans Le Réel et son double (1976), il est montré que la configuration illusoire dont s’est dotée la société contemporaine dépeinte par Houellebecq pour enrichir le réel rend impossible, précisément en raison de cet aveuglement sur son propre compte, toute victoire de l’idéal, de toute utopie.AbstractThis article will attempt to understand the reasons for the failure of the utopia submitted in The Possibility of an Island, the aporia to which inevitably leads narrating the “real”. Based on observations by Gilles Lipovetsky (L’Ère du vide, 1983) on the emptiness of contemporary society, and on the theory of the illusion / reality couple developed by Clément Rosset in Le Réel et son double (1976), it is shown that the configuration of contemporary society portrayed by Houellebecq, which has created an illusion to enrich the “real”, makes impossible, precisely because of this blindness on its own account, any victory of an ideal, of a utopia.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".