Bibliographic record
Abstract
La métaphore archéologique traverse en filigrane la pensée scientifique de Freud qui interprète le travail du psychanalyste en train de reconstruire « ce qui a été oublié » par analogie à celui de l’archéologue. Le travail de Fellini comme cinéaste-archéologue parmi les chronotopes de Rome recoupe le travail du psychanalyste freudien parce que les deux participent, avec des moyens spécifiques, à la reconstruction d’un monde. Dans les deux cas, leur approche archéologique est tributaire de Rome, située au centre de leur démarche épistémologique. Cette rencontre entre Freud, Fellini et Rome suscite des questionnements. Quels liens se tissent entre la ville, son cinéaste par excellence et le père de la psychanalyse ? Quels rapports surgissent dans la ville palimpseste entre l’archéologie et l’inconscient, l’inconscient et la mémoire, la mémoire urbaine et celle personnelle ? Quel rôle jouent le rêve et l’invention dans la reconstruction mnésique et dans l’autofiction scientifique et cinématographique ?
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".