Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amplement pratique au XVI e siecle, le dialogue est rapidement considere comme un genre litteraire susceptible de theorisation.Or definir les signes distinctifs du dialogue de la Renaissance n'est pas chose facile, s'agissant d'un genre dont chacun s'accorde a reconnaitre la multiplicite des formes. Cette specificite seule justifie que l'on multiplie les sources d'informations dont la diversite en synchronie et les eventuelles considerations diachroniques nous permettront de brosser un portrait de ce genre qui, peut-etre plus que nul autre, ne saurait etre concu que comme un processus dynamique, un ensemble de possibles offerts a la creativite du dialoguiste. Les monographies retenues ici sont celles d'Italiens comme Carlo Sigonio (De dialogo liber, 1562), Sperone Speroni (Apologia dei dialogi, 1574) ou Le Tasse (Discorso dell arte del dialogo, 1585), auxquels s'ajoutent les reflexions des francais Jacques Peletier du Mans, Hugues Salel ou Pierre Viret. Enfin et dans la mesure ou ce sont aussi les commentateurs de la Poetique d'Aristote qui etudient le genre, nous evoquons aussi la Poetica d'Aristotele vulgarizzata e sposta (1570) de Lodovico Castelvetro, les Annotationi nel libro della poetica d'Aristotele (1575) d'Alessandro Piccolomini ou encore L'Organe, c est a dire l'instrument du discours (1589) de Philippe Canaye, traducteur de l'Organon.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".