Génération, cénacle, mouvance : essai de sociologie quantitative des Jeunes-France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À Michel Lacroix Y aurait-il un contentieux entre la sociologie de la littérature et le romantisme français ?Comment expliquer que cette discipline qui s'est révélée si féconde concernant l'histoire de la littérature du XIX e siècle se soit montrée si rétive à considérer comme un objet d'étude pertinent le plus important mouvement littéraire et artistique de la première moitié de ce siècle, qu'elle l'ait si constamment récusé ou dénigré ?Peut-être la relation entre la sociologie de la littérature et le romantisme n'était-elle pas partie du bon pied.Se plaçant dans la lignée de Karl Marx et de Friedrich Engels qui avaient élevé Honoré de Balzac contre Eugène Sue, Georg Lukács, pionnier de l'approche sociale de la littérature, opposait déjà le romantisme révolutionnaire des Björn-Olav Dozo et Anthony Glinoer, « Génération, cénacle, mouvance : essai de sociologie quantitative des Jeunes-France », Les Cahiers du XIX e siècle, numéro III-IV, 2008-2009.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".