Du “conseil des muetz” au “taire parlier”: Le langage du geste chez Rabelais et Montaigne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article traite de la réflexion renaissante sur le langage gestuel telle que cette réflexion s'articule dans les textes de Rabelais et Montaigne. Ces oeuvres apparaissent en effet comme de précieuses balises de la période 1540-1580 où se serait manifesté, selon des études récentes, un tournant "empirique" dans la réflexion langagière, amenant les penseurs à délaisser la problématique de l'origine pour s'intéresser davantage à la question de l'universalité du langage, et ainsi au langage non verbal. Les textes montaignien et rabelaisien, qui comportent de nombreux passages apologiques du geste comme acte de communication, seront ici étudiés en parallèle, en suivant les trois axes principaux de la sémiotique gestuelle de la Renaissance, soit l'étude du langage non verbal des enfants, des sourds-muets et des animaux.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".