Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article aborde le fado par le prisme du répertoire, un concept fortement structurant dans les pratiques et sans cesse débattu par les acteurs. Ce choix permet de réfléchir à ce qui fait l’unité, la continuité et la créativité de cette chanson intermédiale, à la fois traditionnelle et moderne, orale et écrite, performative et médiatique. Le fado peut dès lors être abordé comme un art de la reprise : chaque interprète, en se réappropriant des éléments du répertoire et en proposant de nouvelles configurations lors de sa performance, réactive et renouvelle ce dernier, tout en laissant sa trace dans une mémoire collective des interprétations. On adopte ici une perspective historique afin d’observer comment le répertoire est réinvesti et redéfini à chaque époque, et quels sont les affects, les valeurs et les mémoires que ses mises en oeuvre véhiculent.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".