Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à montrer comment les prix littéraires, ces instances de prescription et de consécration, sont au cœur de logiques à la fois culturelles et marchandes, littéraires et économiques. Il interroge les mutations de la désignation institutionnelle de la valeur et du goût à l’aune de plus d’un siècle d’histoire littéraire et éditoriale. Il cherche à montrer comment les industries culturelles, les « médiamorphoses » ou mutation des supports médiatiques, et la poussée spectaculaire via internet des jugements de goûts amateurs ont modifié le statut symbolique et les représentations collectives de l’écrivain et du livre. Il s’articule autour de trois questionnements, qui correspondent à des mutations successives : l’autorité institutionnelle et ses crises, la déterritorialisation du goût et de la valeur, et enfin, l’atomisation d’une légitimité à la carte, qui ne compromet pas cette reconnaissance littéraire, mais au contraire la renforce symboliquement et économiquement.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".