Le Comble du singulier : génie et idiotie dans le discours médical au XIXe siècle (l’exemple de Louis Lambert)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours du XIXe siècle, la question des liens d’affinité entre génie et idiotie a suscité la curiosité des médecins et des écrivains. Cette solidarité paradoxale se fait jour dans Louis Lambert (1832), roman consacré à un génie précoce sombrant dans un état de catalepsie proche de l’idiotie. Balzac fait ressortir l’ambivalence entourant ces deux manifestations de la singularité : le glissement du génie à l’idiotie reflète une hésitation, voire une inquiétude – mêlée de fascination – quant au statut à leur accorder. La singularité est en effet considérée comme déviance, aberration et symptôme d’inadaptation ou au contraire comme figure exemplaire et fascinante de l’accomplissement de soi. Balzac explore les difficultés herméneutiques liées à l’identification du génie et de l’idiotie tout en se désolidarisant des approches réductrices telles qu’elles s’expriment en particulier dans le discours médical. À travers la destinée de Louis Lambert, la singularité s’affirme comme une dimension fascinante, troublante et ambiguë dont la signification demeure irréductible.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".