Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les études sur les génocides et la Shoah privilégient le témoignage, au détriment des mécanismes narratifs mis en oeuvre. Cet article propose une analyse de la mise en abyme du jugement dans Murambi, le livre des ossements de Boubacar Boris Diop, roman-reportage sur le génocide des Tutsi au Rwanda. Je suggère que sa dimension testimoniale relève non seulement de son champ sémantique, mais également de ses plans narratif et énonciatif. Des procédés narratifs y sont déployés, mettant en scène une situation de procès où bourreau, victime et juge se font face. Dans ce roman d’horreur, Siméon Habineza émerge, figure du juste opposé à toute forme d’extrémisme, comme le véritable héros du roman. Au contraire des autres membres de sa tribu, il refuse de participer au génocide, et, après la guerre, combat la vengeance. À la différence des autres romans de l’auteur, qui sont des tragédies dont aucun héros n’émerge, dans Murambi, héros et antihéros sont identifiés. Cette forme mélodramatique suggère qu’un roman sur un génocide ne saurait rester neutre sur le plan des valeurs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".