Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relations between biography and fiction historically constitute a return to a tradition that is prior to modern and positivist biography, to a state of indistinctness which characterized historical lives as fictional ones. Biography has been seen, throughout times, in its discursive dimension, beyond the strictly literary spectrum, which was observed through mutual genre invasions, considered as a way of transgression. Afterwards, the literary biography was elaborated through the fictionalization of the story of a life, the aesthetical character having privilege over the historical or scientific ones, in a moment when it was less valued as a historical subgenre, centered in the great men’s achievements, aiming at having a new role, then literalized. With these ideas in mind, the present work will explore the notion of transposal as a way to access the various contemporary biographical configurations, according to different strategies through which fiction is used. With a biographical corpus composed by works such as those by Chistopher Ransmayr, Eric Koch, Victor-Lévy Beaulieu and Pierre Mertens, amongst others, the transposal will be analyzed according to three dimensions: the living, the work and the critic. The first way of transposal is related to the transference of reality to writing, thus reconfiguring the past in another time. The second kind of transposal contemplates the relations between the biographer and the biographed subject’s work, in which the original texts may be inserted to make reverberate work into life. The third dimension of transposal is the fictionalization of the critical exercise, related to the cognitive value of contemporary forms of biographic, process in which interpretation and commentary revivify the reading of a work. --- Original in French. --- DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12957/matraga.2017.31594
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.008 |
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".