Vivre de sa fiction, vivre dans sa fiction : le processus créateur au défi du numérique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméCet article traite du rapport entre l’identité numérique d’un auteur et la création de son œuvre. L’auteur et moi (2012) d’Éric Chevillard sert d’étude de cas pour examiner le processus créatif à partir duquel la présence numérique de cet auteur renforce et avance son projet d’écrivain. Il s’agit de remettre en question l’authenticité du réel en analysant les façons dont Chevillard se confond avec ses personnages, qui sont souvent eux-mêmes des écrivains. Cette confluence d’identités devient d’autant plus complexe lorsque le numérique brouille les frontières entre le réel et le virtuel, permettant à Chevillard de se servir de son site-web, de son blog et de ses interviews pour effacer davantage toute distinction entre lui-même et son persona. La présence auctoriale, devenue protéiforme et omniprésente, est disposée à interroger les partis-pris du lecteur et à explorer les enjeux de la littérature contemporaine dans une culture numérique. AbstractThis article reflects on the relationship between an author’s digital identity and the creation of literary works. The Author and Me (2012, transl. 2014) by Eric Chevillard, serves as a case study to examine the creative undertaking by which the digital presence of this author reinforces and advances his literary project. The goal is to challenge the authenticity of the real by analyzing the ways in which Chevillard confuses himself with his characters, who are often writers themselves. This confluence of identities becomes more complex as the digital blurs the boundaries between the real and the virtual, allowing Chevillard to use his website, blog and interviews to further undermine the distinction between himself and his persona. Having become protean and ubiquitous, authorial presence is well-positioned to call into question a reader’s biases and explore the stakes of contemporary literature in digitally-mediated culture.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".