« Quos numquam vidimus » : un motif cicéronien dans Les Regrets de Du Bellay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les récurrences de formules poétiques dans les Regrets reflètent souvent la familiarité du poète avec les tournures usitées des rhéteurs latins, même parfois lorsque le poète déploie de véritables lieux communs. Cette étude considère les cas de trois sonnets (129, 161 et 185) dans lesquels Du Bellay fait usage d’un motif rencontré dans le De Amicitia , où Laelius explique de quelle manière l’on peut aimer une personne avant même de l’avoir rencontrée. Il s’agit de montrer que si l’emploi de cette tournure par Du Bellay comporte toujours un aspect protocolaire - le poète faisant œuvre de courtisan au moment où il regagne son pays natal -, la précision de l’usage qu’il en fait laisse apparaître la science de l’ aptum qui constitue le fondement de la fiction épistolaire des Regrets .
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".