Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les conteurs de la Renaissance mènent différentes réflexions sur les conduites humaines. Ils affichent une préférence pour les questions morales. Cela est dû à la vocation didactique que la plupart d’entre eux prêtent à leurs œuvres. Ainsi, une série de dualités se développe, opposant la bonté à la méchanceté, l’amour à la haine, le bien au mal, etc. Le personnage du méchant est omniprésent dans les nouvelles françaises du XVIe siècle. En violant la loi, il semble mériter le plus cruel des châtiments. Cependant, au-delà d’une dimension manichéenne du monde, la figure du méchant s’avère d’une grande complexité. On se propose d’examiner le rôle attribué à ce type de personnage compte tenu de la portée exemplaire de ce genre de récits. En s’intéressant à la représentation du mal dans la narration brève de l’époque, on s’interrogera sur la notion de justice et le besoin de rétablir l’ordre collectif.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".