Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1997, les Éditions gaies et lesbiennes publient Embarquement pour l’amour, inaugurant la première collection de romans sentimentaux dans l’édition française. Plus qu’anecdotique, la revendication d’une littérature sentimentale gay implique deux enjeux. D’une part, ce type de production met en évidence la romance et se distancie du trait “sexuel”, qui continue à servir de point de repère à la définition de l’homosexualité. D’autre part, bien que genre populaire, le roman sentimental est légitimé dans la production éditoriale : il s’agit ainsi de déspécialiser la fiction dite “homosexuelle” afin de l’intégrer dans la littérature générale.Cette étude analyse l’émergence du roman sentimental gay dans l’édition française et montre que, loin de reproduire les structures stéréotypiques du roman sentimental hétérosexuel, le roman étudié déconstruit au contraire ces structures au profit d’un imaginaire du texte dans lequel les deux protagonistes masculins façonnent une relation basée sur l’équité des rôles dans le couple.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".