Exterritorialité, énonciation, discours : approche interdisciplinaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concept forge par le philosophe et sociologue Georg Simmel, l'exterritorialite designe le contexte de l'etranger - celui qui est dans une situation decalee, - entre-deux -, sur le seuil, renvoye a une alterite. Ayant trait a la mobilite et au changement, l'exterritorialite est d'ordre spatial, linguistique, culturel, identitaire... Traiter une telle question, c'est aussi prendre en compte l'enonciation et le discours. Souhaitant engager un dialogue interdisciplinaire, cet ouvrage s'interesse a differents genres de discours (litteraire, mediatique, testimonial, socioculturel, publicitaire...) analyses a la lumiere des nouveaux paradigmes epistemologiques et parametres socio-economico-culturels. Tout en cherchant a relever les differentes figures de l'exterritorialite, ce travail collectif vise a reflechir sur la question et a cerner ses fonctions. Quels sont les comportements enonciatifs et discursifs des locuteurs en contexte exterritorial et en situation interculturelle ? Comment les ecrivains - venus d'ailleurs - traitent le probleme de l'identite et percoivent leur alterite ? Comment est aborde le contexte exterritorial par le discours televisuel ? Il s'agit de quelques-unes des questions presentees lors du colloque qui s'est tenu a l'Universite de Cadix en 2008, reunissant des chercheurs d'Espagne, France et Canada, provenant de differents champs disciplinaires (analyse du discours, communication, litterature comparee, langues et litteratures etrangeres...).
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 | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".