Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse la rupture idéologique et l’ambiguïté de la voix narrative à l’œuvre dans le roman noir français du xxie siècle, en particulier à travers la radicalité des faits que mettent en tension les écrivains Jérôme Leroy, Antoine Chainas et DOA. À travers une approche stylistique et sociologique des textes, l’étude pointe les brouillages esthétiques et les paradoxes formels – qui, bien souvent, confinent à une négation sarcastique de toute valeur morale – avec lesquels jouent les narrateurs et les personnages de ces romans ancrés dans les crises du 3e millénaire. Si l’ironie et le désabusement observés sont un héritage conscient du roman noir américain classique et du « néo-polar », le reniement du progressisme cher au « polar de gauche » contribue à l’émergence d’une expression inédite de la désillusion : l’« ironihilisme », point de vue à la fois impertinent, distancié, trompeur et compromettant sur les discours et les gestes des énonciateurs comme des actants du récit.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".