Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse les tactiques de l’éditeur alternatif new-yorkais Semiotext(e) et, à titre de comparaison, celles de médiateurs éditoriaux plus institutionnels, pour mettre au jour la fonction du format-livre et de ses protocoles communicationnels dans la diffusion nord-américaine du phénomène dit de la French Theory. À côté de facteurs plus connus, tels que la crise du champ littéraire dans l’université américaine ou l’axe intellectuel transatlantique, c’est le rôle d’une dynamique spécifique du support-livre, avec ses composantes complémentaires (format, péritexte, modes de classement et procédures de présentation) et ses antécédents historiques, qui invite à voir dans le succès américain de certains théoriciens français récents — de Foucault à Deleuze et Derrida — l’exemple par excellence d’un transfert culturel, au sens de détournement d’un discours à même ses appareillages de transmission.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".