Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans son dernier roman, Les Sorcières de la République, Chloé Delaume imagine une société où, devenues sorcières après que les déesses de l’Olympe les ont dotées de pouvoirs magiques, les femmes renversent le gouvernement français jugé trop oppressif pour celles-ci et imposent un nouveau régime politique. Si l’intrigue paraît fantasque, le réinvestissement de la figure de la sorcière, incantatrice et jeteuse de sorts, permet de mettre en avant l’idée d’un pouvoir d’action résidant fondamentalement dans la parole. Cet article se propose d’analyser comment cette agentivité discusive se construit précisément dans le texte en observant la parole de la sorcière, de la représentation de son émettrice à l’espace dans lequel sa voix résonne. Mots-clés : sorcière, agentivité, pouvoir, parole, Delaume Références Austin, John L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, 1962. Bras-Chopard (Le), Armelle. Les Putains du Diable : Le procès en sorcellerie des femmes. Plon, 2006. Bechtel, Guy, Les quatre femmes de Dieu : La putain, la sorcière, la sainte & Bécassine. Plon, 2000. Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Routledge, 1997. ---. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990. Delaume, Chloé. Les Sorcières de la République. Seuil, 2016. ---. Mes biens chères sœurs. Seuil, 2019. Despentes, Virginie. King Kong théorie. Grasset & Fasquelle, « Le livre de poche », 2007. Federici, Silvia, Caliban et la Sorcière : femmes, corps et accumulation primitive. Traduit par le collectif Senonevero, Entremonde/Senonevero, 2014. Gardiner, Judith Kegan, éditrice. Provoking Agents: Gender and Agency in Theory and Practice. University of Illinois Press, 1995. Havercroft, Barbara. « Quand écrire, c'est agir : stratégies narratives d'agentivité féministe dans Jounal pour mémoire de France Théoret. » Dalhousie French Studies, vol. 47, Summer 1999, pp. 93-113. Hekman, Susan. “Subjects and Agents: The question for Feminism.” Provoking Agents: Gender and Agency in Theory and Practice, édité par Judith Kegan Gardiner, University of Illinois Press, 1995, pp. 94-207. Michelet, Jules. La Sorcière. 1862. M. Didier, 1952-56. Rose, Gillian. Feminism & Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Polity Press, 1993.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.008 |
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".