Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notre article analyse le « Discours sur l’élégie héroïque » de Treneuil et le « Sur l’élégie » de Millevoye, afin de voir comment l’entreprise définitoire du xviii e siècle a débouché sur plusieurs flottements génériques. Au-delà des emprunts directs ou de traces intertextuelles, c’est bien la nécessité d’un registre élégiaque moderne qui rend compte du dialogue qui a lieu entre les théoriciens du xviii e siècle et ces deux poètes. Nous analysons dans un premier temps l’opposition que ces derniers entérinent entre les « vraies élégies » et les poèmes qui n’auraient d’élégiaque que leur dénomination générique, ce qui suppose donc des critères définitoires autres que ceux légués par l’Antiquité. Nous voyons ensuite que la démarche historique qu’adoptent les deux auteurs relève de la même logique, en ce sens qu’ils réécrivent l’histoire de l’élégie au prisme de l’élégiaque.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".