Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose de présenter les nouveaux masters de création littéraire qui se sont mis en place en France depuis 2012 et d’examiner en quoi ils modifient le rapport à la littérature et permettent de renouveler les études littéraires : ils appréhendent la littérature dans son « usage esthétique », comme pratique, constituant ainsi un tournant historique ; ils s’adressent à de nouveaux publics, appréhendent la littérature comme pratique sociale, dans son lien au réel ; ils contribuent à modifier la place de l’écrivain, à l’université et dans la société, et enfin transforment le rapport à la recherche, dans la mesure où la création y est conçue en tant que recherche, comme dans les autres arts. Ils prennent au sérieux l’idée que la littérature est un art.Since 2012, several French universities have offered Master’s degree programs in Creative Writing. The aim of this article is to present these programs and to see the extent to which they have changed one’s approach to literature and have renewed literary studies. Indeed, they consider literature in its « aesthetic use », as a praxis. As such, they represent a turning point in the history of literary studies. Also, they attract new types of students and consider literature as social practice : they explore the way it relates to reality. They help change the place the writer holds, whether it is at university or in the society as a whole. Finally, they have changed one’s approach to research insofar as in these programs, to create is to research, as in the other arts. They take seriously the idea that literature is indeed an art form.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".