Figures du narrateur suspect dans L’œuvre posthume de Thomas Pilaster et L’auteur et moi d’Éric Chevillard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à étudier les variations narratives dans L’œuvre posthume de Thomas Pilaster (1999) et L’auteur et moi (2012) d’Éric Chevillard. L’œuvre romanesque de Chevillard mise sur diverses formes de suspicion narrative et conteste l’autorité narrative. Les deux romans étudiés recourent à des procédés semblables : narration métatextuelle, rapport du narrateur avec son alter ego, multiplicité des récits, mise en doute de l’authenticité du narrateur fictionnel. C’est surtout au sein du péritexte que l’on trouve les manifestations les plus complexes du mensonge et de la mauvaise foi qui font fléchir la fiabilité narrative. Je cherche à comprendre comment Chevillard – qui multiplie les façons de tromper le lecteur – crée de nombreuses figures de narrateurs incarnant le mensonge ou la mauvaise foi. En reprenant des éléments clés de la critique narratologique (Nünning, Wagner), je postule que les différentes figures de narrateurs (non fiable, indigne de confiance ou suspect) imaginées par Chevillard aident à repousser les frontières de l’analyse narrative.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".