MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231827361 · doi:10.7202/1057989ar

Montaigne carnettiste

2019· article· fr· W4231827361 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurent Gerbier, Irène Langlet

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes littéraires · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Des Essais de Montaigne, nous n’avons pas les carnets ; n’y a-t-il pas cependant une certaine fécondité théorique à essayer de lire les Essais eux-mêmes comme des carnets ? Une telle lecture, qui emprunte à la théorie des textes possibles son coup de force herméneutique tout en s’appuyant sur la théorie du carnettisme littéraire contemporain, met en évidence dans le constant travail d’annotation et de griffonnage de Montaigne une inversion inattendue : dans les Essais, le carnet vient après le livre, et non pas avant. Cette hypothèse, qui s’inscrit dans une poétique du support matériel plutôt que de la forme, permet également d’examiner l’enjeu moral de ce griffonnage carnettiste.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes littérairesSame topicFrench Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207