Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les formes réputées “interprétatives” du discours rapporté comme le discours indirect libre (DIL), ou le discours direct libre (DDL), entretiennent non seulement un flou quant à l’énonciateur présumé des paroles représentées, mais, en se dispensant de “verbe introducteur”, elles peuvent aussi rendre incertaine la frontière entre un report de dires et une (re)formulation de pensées. Cet article engage une réflexion sur le lien entre ces formes et la présomption d’énonciation qu’elles véhiculent : des propos rapportés (fidèlement ou non) à un effet de point de vue, en passant par le courant de conscience du monologue intérieur, on a essayé de montrer comment l’actualisation énonciative est conditionnée par une représentation du propos, combien il importe de distinguer les niveaux où s’opère le clivage de la parole et de savoir à quel titre on invoque l’indicibilité.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".