« L'érotisme des autres » : phénoménologie de la pornographie chez Robbe-Grillet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une ligne subtile sépare l’érotisme de la pornographie dans la production artistique d’Alain Robbe-Grillet. La réception de son oeuvre nous indique que la relation entre ces deux notions est le résultat d’une négociation sociale impliquant différents codes (code esthétique, code légal, etc.). Nous appuyant sur certains épisodes de la carrière de Robbe-Grillet (l’accusation d’obscénité portée contre son film, Glissements progressif du plaisir, autour des années 1970; la controverse engendrée par la publication de son dernier roman, Un roman sentimental, 2007), nous voulons montrer pourquoi et comment cette négociation peut amener à des sérieuses incompréhensions et, à la limite, échouer.AbstractA thin line separates eroticism and pornography in Alain Robbe-Grillet’s artistic production. Examing the reception history of his work we can parse out the relation between those two notions as the result of a social negotiation that involves different codes (aesthetic code, legal code, etc.). Focusing our attention on a few episodes in Robbe-Grillet’s career (the obscenity case against the movie Glissements progressif du plaisir in the Seventies; the controversy aroused by the last novel published before his death: Un roman sentimental, 2007) we want to show why and how this negotiation could lead to serious misunderstandings and, at worst, fail.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".