Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour objectif de montrer que les Articles intrépides ne sont pas le simple commentaire des œuvres d’art dont Hervé Guibert a choisi de rendre compte — peinture, cinéma, danse, etc. —, mais aussi, et surtout, l’expression, par effet de correspondance, de toute la conception esthétique de l’écrivain. En outre, l’article de presse lui-même, dans sa forme, témoigne d’une écriture qui ne connaît aucune frontière générique, justifiant sans doute son caractère intrépide et qui applique au texte les procédés, cinématographique ou photographique mis au jour dans les œuvres de prédilection.AbstractThis article aims to show Articles intrépides is not the simple explanation of works of art he has chosen to report - painting, film, dance ... but also and above all the expression, effect correspondence, all the aesthetic design of Hervé Guibert. In addition, the press release itself, in its form, which reflects a write knows no generic, perhaps justifying his fearless nature, and applies to the text processes, film and photography, brought to light in the works of choice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".