Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forme originale de la communication lettrée, née à la fin du premier tiers du xviiie siècle, la « correspondance littéraire » peut se définir comme l’envoi régulier, sous forme de lettres manuscrites, de la chronique des activités culturelles du moment à Paris. Le destinataire, qui paie fort cher cette prestation, est presque toujours une tête couronnée de l’espace germanique, ce qui est un éloquent témoignage de la fascination qu’exerce alors la culture française sur l’élite européenne. Malgré de nombreux points communs, la « correspondance littéraire » diffère de la correspondance érudite de l’époque humaniste dont elle est héritière, autant que du journalisme littéraire qui prolifère au même moment, et des « nouvelles à la main » à contenu proprement politique. Concevable uniquement dans l’univers culturel de la France d’Ancien Régime, elle partagera son sort et disparaîtra à l’orée de la Révolution, après avoir connu un vif succès pendant un demi-siècle.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.157 | 0.052 |
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".