Bibliographic record
Abstract
La critique photographique d’Hervé Guibert au journal Le Monde (1977-1985) s’adresse à un lectorat privé d’illustrations. Tout au long de sa rubrique, il met en place une méthode destinée à développer l’intérêt du public pour des photographies non publiées dans le journal. Cette méthode n’est pas sans liens avec le thème récurrent de la cécité dans ses romans, depuis Des Aveugles jusqu’à Cytomégalovirus. À partir de ce thème, cet article propose une relecture de ce parcours critique qui, par référence à Diderot, prend l’aspect d’une Lettre aux aveugles, à l’usage de lecteurs privés d’images. Il analyse aussi les résonnances de cette attitude critique dans une œuvre partagée entre littérature et photographie.AbstractHervé Guibert, the critic in photography in Le Monde (1977-1985), addresses readers who do not have access to any pictures, since the photos he is referring to are not published in the newspaper. He then sets up a method intended to develop the interest of this particular readership, which is closely linked to a recurring theme in his novels from Des Aveugles to Cytomégalovirus: blindness. This article is a rereading of his career as a critic from this theme, thanks to a reference to a Letter to the blind by Diderot. This article also analyzes the echo of this critical study in his whole work as a writer and as a photographer.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".