Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bergounioux's writing in search of itself. This study examines the original evolution of Pierre Bergounioux’s polymorphic and changing work, which is fashioned through a rarefaction of long forms in favor of short forms, and which underlines how some mechanisms of writing attest of a constant thematic circularity, if not anecdotal, through an articulation and a redistribution as different as systematic of the material which recurrently explores the ambiguity of the subject matter. From one work to the next, from the long form to the short form, Bergounioux’s writing – thereby conveying the brooding proper to contemporary writing – constantly shifts while regenerating cognitive postures. Rezumat. Scrierea bergouniană - căutându-se pe sine. Acest studiu analizează evoluția inițială a operei polimorfe și în continuă schimbare a lui Pierre Bergounioux, care se va fi construind printr-o rarefiere a formelor lungi în favoarea formelor scurte, și subliniază modul în care anumite mecanisme proprii scriiturii asigură o circularitate tematică constantă, chiar anecdotică, prin o articulare și o redistribuire la fel de diferită de cea sistematică a materialului care nu încetează să exploreze ambiguitatea subiectului. De la o operă la alta, de la forma lungă până la forma scurtă, scrierea bergouniană – purtătoare a unei continue conformări cu scriitura actuală – se transformă fără încetare, revitalizându-şi totodată pozițiile cognitive. Cuvinte cheie: Pierre Bergounioux, forme scurte, forme lungi, Subiect, experienţă, ficţiune
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".