Le dilettante et l’érudit : du discours académique à la critique romantique du savoir (Stendhal, Nerval)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empruntant au spécialiste son discours et à l’amateur sa posture, Stendhal et Nerval se situent tous deux en marge des institutions académiques et marquent un jalon de l’histoire culturelle qu’une archéologie des formes de l’érudition des amateurs se doit de prendre en compte. Ces deux auteurs adoptent la posture du dilettante afin de critiquer l’érudition académique à travers ses objets, ses formes et ses médias. Cette révolution romantique renouvelle tant la visée que les destinataires d’un discours critique qui se tient à la charnière du discours académique et du discours de vulgarisation. Cette critique se déploie sans ordre ni méthode, n’ayant pas vocation à s’ériger en système, et se pratique sur le mode de la causerie, la communication ne visant pas nécessairement à instruire mais reposant avant tout sur le plaisir de l’échange. Il s’agit pour eux de renouveler la perception du savoir, considéré non plus du point du vue académique, mais de celui de l’expérience personnelle. érudition des amateurs, Gérard de Nerval, Stendhal, institution littéraire, légitimité
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".