Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writers’ biographies (written about writers by writers) constitute a genre with very long historical roots, which has flourished in the last twenty-five or thirty years. This is undoubtedly linked to the lifting of the post-structuralist ban concerning the author as a person, so that it became possible, at least in France, to legitimize biographical writing again. We date this revival to the mid-1980s, when Duras, Robbe-Grillet and Sollers all published (auto)biographical texts, whose status is certainly problematic, but nonetheless worthy of careful attention. Immersed in Romantic anthropology, in various transpositions and numerous genre nostalgias, this general ambiguity appears as the key characteristic of biographical productions of the 1980s. What we have here is a kind of a spectacle, in which the figure of the author re-enters the stage. At the same time, it is a “biographical illusion” (Bourdieu). Many contemporary biographers know that the ‘truth’ about the other can only be grasped through a play on forms (or on the memory of forms), if not, to evoke Lacan, in “a line of fiction”.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.018 |
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".