La philologie romane est-elle capable de relever les défis du présent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article comprises two sections: in Section One I sketch out the history and the evolution of French philology, understood both as an academic discipline and as an academic/administrative unit within Polish universities, officially known as Departments of French (Philology). In Section Two I reflect on my personal experience of that evolution, as it has affected my professional choices and academic career. Both meanings of “French philology” (discipline and institution) are rooted in German academic tradition to which the entire system of Polish humanities is indebted. Until the 1990s, French philology was synonymous with French studies, understood as the teaching and the academic study of French language and literature. Like other humanities departments in Poland, French philology departments inevitably functioned under the pressure of current political forces. Yet, French philologists in Poland never lost touch with the world’s evolving humanities or the changing scholarly paradigms. Following the radical political transformation of 1989, traditional French philology in Po-land opened up to a whole new range of scholarly fields (literatures and cultures of francophone countries), theories (postmodern and postcolonial studies), and approaches (interdisciplinary scho-larship). Thus Polish romanists have joined the international scholarly community. In the article, I document these processes, reflecting on my own university career: I started off as a traditional scholar doing research in the literature of French Middle Ages, then moved on to studying Canadian and American Francophone cultures, to eventually become involved in interdisciplinary studies at the Faculty of “Artes Liberales” at the University of Warsaw.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".