Un regard sur la critique française : écrire sur la trilogie Le voile noir du pasteur de Romeo Castellucci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quel rôle le critique peut-il avoir vis-à-vis des nouveaux langages de la scène théâtrale contemporaine? Comment le critique peut-il aborder, par l’écriture, des spectacles comme ceux de Romeo Castellucci où le langage scénique proposé échappe à la technè théâtrale traditionnelle? Cet article propose d’analyser la figure et le rôle du critique-spectateur face à l’un des artistes les plus controversés. Pour ce faire, nous nous sommes intéressée en particulier à la façon dont la critique des quotidiens et des hebdomadaires français dans les années 2011-2013 a pris en charge les trois spectacles qui constituent la trilogie Le voile noir du pasteur : Sur le concept du visage du fils de Dieu (2010), Le voile noir du pasteur (2011) et The Four Seasons Restaurant (2012). Dans notre cas d’étude, le critique s’est avéré être un témoin de l’événement théâtral sans outils d’analyse aptes à traduire le langage scénique de Castellucci.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".