La scène de mentorat – (Se) raconter la création littéraire en plein travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Dans les formations en écriture créative et dans les maisons d’édition, le travail littéraire des auteur-e-s est souvent accompagné par un-e autre auteur-e ou lecteur/-trice professionnel-le (chargé-e de supervision, mentor, éditeur/trice), intervenant dans le processus d’écriture. L’article analyse les échanges de quatre duos de mentorat ainsi que leur impact sur le processus d’écriture. En référence à la « scène d’écriture », l’article décrit cette pratique littéraire ouverte par la présence d’un-e autre en tant que « scène de mentorat », dans laquelle le texte littéraire s’élabore au cours d’un dialogue continu. La scène de mentorat est aussi envisagée comme un dispositif performatif, dans lequel le texte a la fonction de script du dialogue. Quant à l’interaction entre texte, auteur-e et mentor, elle peut être comprise en tant qu’une chaîne de feedbacks. AbstractIn creative writing courses and in literary publishing situations, authors contribute to the writing of their colleagues, as editors, supervisors or ‘mentors’. Literary works in progress are thus critically discussed and reviewed within an ongoing dialogue. The literary text is at the centre of this setting, in which the writing scene is not reserved to the author alone, but opened by the presence of another and can thus be considered as a ‘mentoring scene’. The article analyses the dialogues of four ‘mentoring duos’, evaluating their impact on the writing processes. It considers this specific writing scene as potentially performative, whereby the text acts as the script of the dialogue and finally considers the specific interaction between text, author, mentor/supervisor as a ‘feedback series’.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".