Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé: Si la pensée plurielle signifie souvent chemins inconnus et finalités incertaines, elle n’en est pas moins investie de propensions à certaines voies d’exploration et d’expression. Le but de cet article est de sonder l’une de ces voies, à savoir l’écriture essayistique. Un grand nombre de penseurs américains affichent une préférence marquée pour ce genre littéraire polymorphe, et ce, quels que puissent être les écarts historiques, culturels, politiques ou idéologiques qui les séparent. Comment expliquer cet attrait puissant de l’essai? Voilà la question à laquelle cet article proposera des éléments de réponse au moyen d’une étude des stratégies discursives de la subjectivité essayistique dont l’écriture de René Lapierre offrira une illustration emblématique. ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ Semantismo da subjetividade ensaística: o caso de René LapierreResumo: Embora o pensamento plural frequentemente signifique caminhos desconhecidos e finalidades incertas, ele não deixa de ser propenso a algumas vias de exploração e expressão. O objetivo deste artigo é explorar uma dessas vias: a escrita ensaística. Um grande número de pensadores americanos demonstra uma clara preferência por esse gênero literário polimorfo, quaisquer que sejam as diferenças históricas, culturais, políticas ou ideológicas que os separam. Como explicar essa poderosa atração do ensaio? Eis a questão à qual este artigo proporá elementos de resposta por meio de um estudo das estratégias discursivas da subjetividade ensaística, da qual a escrita de René Lapierre será uma ilustração emblemática.Palavras-chave: Ensaio; Gênero literário; Teoria literária; René Lapierre.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".