Habiter les interstices et leurs possibilités : les discours utopiques et méta-utopiques dans Les Furtifs, « C@PTCH@ » et « Hyphe…? » d’Alain Damasio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une analyse du discours consacré par le roman Les Furtifs et les nouvelles « C@PTCH@ » et « Hyphe…? », de l’écrivain de science-fiction français Alain Damasio, à la question de l’habiter ; un discours partagé entre l’eutopie (ou utopie positive) et la dystopie (ou utopie négative). Nous verrons que ces œuvres, caractéristiques de la dystopie critique, ne se contentent pas de porter une appréciation négative de la conjoncture actuelle en la matière ni de proposer une vision alternative de ce qu’habiter le monde doit – ou pourrait – signifier, mais qu’elles interrogent également les limites de l’utopie classique pensée en tant que programme, ceci afin de proposer, par le biais d’un discours méta-utopique (ou discours sur le discours utopique), cette fois, une conception de l’utopie comme aspiration et comme jeu sur les possibles latéraux à la réalité.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".