Les vies françaises de l’<i>Arcadia</i> : du roman de Sir Philip Sidney à ses adaptations dramatiques en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans les années 1580, Sir Philip Sidney s’attelle à l’écriture de son oeuvre majeure, l’Arcadia, vaste roman pastoral dont la composition inachevée s’étale sur plusieurs années, et la publication posthume. Sa diffusion à l’étranger, et notamment en France, est rapide et l’Arcadia fait en effet l’objet dès le début du XVIe siècle de plusieurs traductions, grâce à plusieurs érudits français qui n’hésitent pas à traverser la Manche pour affiner leur compréhension de la langue anglaise. Par ailleurs, le roman pastoral est adapté à trois reprises sur les scènes françaises, entre le tout début du XVIIe siècle et 1642, par successivement Galaut, La Calprenède et Mareschal. Ainsi, se dessinent des trajectoires littéraires et des continuités dramatiques singulières, qui conduisent à interroger tout à la fois les mécanismes de l’adaptation théâtrale et les fondements historiques des transferts culturels entre la France et l’Angleterre. In the 1580s, Sir Philip Sidney set about writing his major work, Arcadia. The unfinished composition of this huge pastoral romance stretched over several years, and it was published posthumously. Its dissemination abroad, and notably in France, was rapid. Arcadia was in fact translated several times from the beginning of the seventeenth century, thanks to a handful of French scholars who readily crossed the channel to refine their understanding of the English language. Moreover, the pastoral romance was adapted three times for the French stage between the outset of the seventeenth century and 1642, by Galaut, La Calprenède and Mareschal successively. Thus literary trajectories and singular dramatic continuities emerge, which lead to the questioning of both the mechanisms of theatrical adaption and the historical foundations of cultural transfers between France and England.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".