Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour reveler la nouvelle realite ainsi que les mouvements interieurs du sujet de la conversation, Nathalie Sarraute recourt a une nouvelle forme du dialogue : celle de sous-conversation. La sous-conversation est tout ce qui se deroule sous la conversation apparente, y compris des mouvements interieurs capricieux ainsi que les conversations imaginaires. Suite a la limite ambigue entre la conversation ordinaire et la sous-conversation due au manque des marques d’interaction, l’ambiguite du sujet de la conversation s’etablie : le sujet de la conversation est decide par la forme du dialogue. Le vouloir dire n’est pas moins ambigu a cause des mots polysemiques et des paroles contradictoires. A part, l’auteure recourt aussi a la repetition des mots. L’ambiguite du sens des rires des enfants met aussi la relation entre le pere et ses enfants en suspense. Paradoxalement, Nathalie Sarraute reussit a ecrire ce qui est ineffable, a savoir les mouvements interieurs. A travers toutes ces ambiguites, Nathalie Sarraute rend ce qui est invisible visible.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".