Brièveté : une question de rythme. Réflexions sur la littérature d’Andrés Rivera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur une problématique théorique : les procédés de la brièveté en littérature. Partant de la distinction entre brièveté (notion qui relève du domaine de l’énonciation) et texte court (caractère dimensionnel de l’écriture), nous étudions ici l’oeuvre de l’écrivain argentin Andrés Rivera (Buenos Aires, 1928-2016), maître de l’énonciation réticente dans la littérature argentine contemporaine. Néanmoins, le réel historique des XIXe et XXe siècles est la matière préférée de sa fiction narrative. Notre attention s’est portée sur les procédés mis en oeuvre pour dérouter l’organisation narrative et le rythme phrastique. Dans une prose composée par des phrases qui deviennent de plus en plus longues, dans des textes de plus en plus courts, la discontinuité instaure une dynamique de la brièveté lisible dans un rythme narratif scandé par les blancs, les ellipses et les figures de répétition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".