Notes sur les assises méthodologiques d’une « histoire littéraire structurale »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the conditions in which H. R. Jauss, in his conference entitledLiteraturgeschichte als Provokation(1967), elaborated a new theoretical approach of “structural literary history”. The central position this essay holds in literary theory has accounted for its enabling a turning point in the practice and the pedagogy of literary studies : it provides a model for the problematic articulation between structural analysis and historical interpretation of texts. In an attempt to put his theory into perspective, the German historian conducted two research projects in medieval genre theory. He bases his argument on the example of animal tales from the satiricalRoman de Renartof the late 12th century, and asserts that philologists, in their extensive search for evidence based on manuscript sources, have discarded both the hermeneutical interest and the structural variety developed by storytellers in their texts. This study wishes to measure the scope and the results of this instructive methodology in the context of its didactic application. It discusses the roots of the problem, as well as the potential significance of “structural literary history” for our contemporary understanding of the theory and the practice of 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.
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 | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".