MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322874491 · doi:10.1093/fs/knv066

Le Voyageur aux mille tours: les ruses de l'écriture du monde à la Renaissance <i>Le Voyageur aux mille tours: les ruses de l'écriture du monde à la Renaissance</i> . Par <scp>Frédéric Tinguely.</scp> (Atelier des voyages, 10.) Paris: Honoré Champion, 2014. 244 pp.

2015· article· fr· W2322874491 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheme (computing)AsideGermanIdentity (music)ArtHospitalityReading (process)LiteratureHumanitiesArt historyHistoryPhilosophyAestheticsTourismArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an elegant book, in four parts and fourteen chapters, on sixteenth-century European travel literature. The structuring Odyssean theme is a capacious one, and it is primarily the concept of metis — ruse — that Frédéric Tinguely retains, although this theme is not central to all the essays. (Other Odyssean themes, such as personal identity, hospitality, nekyia, and nostos, are mostly set aside.) The first part, ‘Infléchir les modèles’, offers several careful analyses of how travel writing reworks previously existing material: especially absorbing is the discussion in Chapter 4 of Calvinist rewriting in Jean Cheneau's Voyage. The second part, ‘Tours oculaires’, addresses eye-witnessing (‘autopsy’). It heterogeneously combines appealing discussions of elephants, tapirs, the Aegean islands, and Montaigne's reactions to the Roman church. Tinguely's diagnosis of Montaigne's subtle reservations about Catholic pomp — usefully juxtaposed with his remarks about the Cannibals (though briefly, in a note) — is thought-provoking. The third part is devoted entirely to Jean de Léry: Tinguely's analysis in Chapter 10 of an encounter with a large Brazilian lizard, by way of Montaigne's cat, is particularly entertaining. A cognitivist might see this as useful material for a history of ‘mind reading’. The final part, ‘Devenir autre’, is arguably the most unified. The discussion in Chapter 12 of Montaigne's ‘anthropological circle’ (that is, of the ways Montaigne's critical faculties are transformed by his changing attitudes towards the cultures, especially German-speaking, that he encounters in his travels), carefully balances another discussion of Jesuit accommodatio in Japan and Canada (Chapter 14). These chapters frame a valuable addition to the discussion of protean identity shifts — notably sexual — in Montaigne. In the best tradition of Genevan criticism, the book is admirably non-parochial. Tinguely moves between classical, and Spanish-, French-, Italian-, German-, and English-language sources; his analysis navigates craftily between Reformist and Catholic theologies. I have one hesitation, since the word ‘cognitif’ comes up frequently, and since Tinguely does not hesitate to adduce, discreetly and effectively, modern analogies, generally in footnotes: a more rigorous discussion of what might fall under the term ‘cognitif’ might help, and recent cognitive work might open up these already excellent analyses to new perspectives. For example, the discussion of how we describe unfamiliar animals, contextualized carefully in the ancient historiographical tradition (in a broad Herodotean sense), might also be recast in terms of the repertory of strategies — perhaps transhistorical — that humans use to describe and cope with unfamiliar phenomena. It is hardly surprising that we might describe new creatures as composites of known ones, or improperly by familiar names whose sense is extended. (Voltaire's much later ‘moutons’, llamas encountered by Candide and Cacambo in Eldorado, come to mind.) These qualifications are not criticisms, but rather they indicate the book's capacity to engage; it is full of subtle observations and elegant close readings. I can only applaud Tinguely's closing defence of a careful, historically contextualized, patient, ‘slow reading’, of clear political relevance today. Indeed, his book is an erudite and sophisticated example of such reading.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it