Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Entre l’histoire, l’archéologie, la philosophie, la psychanalyse et la pratique des archives circule et s’échange un vocabulaire nomade dont le partage semble aller de soi, sans que soient clarifiées leurs modalités de circulation et d’échange. L’usage du terme « archive » en est un cas particulier. Il est saisi ici dans le moment de son apparition puis de sa construction comme concept majeur dans les œuvres de Foucault et de Derrida. L’auteur propose d’associer ces représentations à l’expérience très singulière de l’accès aux archives : de part et d’autre du guichet se confrontent deux expériences et deux perceptions incommensurables, au sens propre du terme. Il est peu de situations scientifiques où la perception globale d’un objet (un fonds d’archives) est proposée par ceux qui en préparent l’usage (les archivistes) sous la forme d’une consommation morcelée et ponctuelle (des lots de cartons) en contradiction complète avec leur propre connaissance, qui en a modelé la forme (le classement). L’« archive » pourrait être le nom de cette distorsion.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".