Une herméneutique du sacré dans les textes littéraires : amorce de théorisation et parcours exploratoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reperer les traces du sacre dans la litterature s’avere souvent une tâche difficile etant donne le caractere evanescent du materiau a l’etude. Est-il d’ailleurs possible de degager les particularites d’un sacre qui s’insererait strictement dans le texte litteraire, fut-ce par voie de mythe ? La premiere partie de la demarche consiste ici a mettre au point une methode d’analyse qui, bien que s’inscrivant dans le sillage de la mythanalyse durandienne, permet de prolonger celle-ci et, peut-etre, d’en renouveler la portee en lui adjoignant les avancees effectuees par les theoriciens du sacre (Rudolf Otto, Mircea Eliade, Roger Caillois, Jean-Jacques Wunenburger). La mise a l’epreuve de cette grille de lecture sur un petit corpus de romans quebecois parus durant la premiere moitie du XXe siecle permet par la suite de jauger la legitimite de cette approche.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".