Bibliographic record
Abstract
On a longtemps cherché à savoir si la bande dessinée était un art. Mais le développement des études de bande dessinée au cours des dernières décennies a largement contribué à transformer le questionnement lui-même : il s’agit aujourd’hui de comprendre la place qu’elle occupe dans le système médiatique. Quelles sont les circulations médiatiques qui structurent la bande dessinée ? Quels phénomènes d’hybridation se jouent entre la bande dessinée et les médias qu’elle rencontre (photographie, peinture, littérature, arts vidéoludiques, etc.) ? Quelles formes de mémoire, quels usages de la citation, quels mécanismes d’appropriation sont à l’œuvre dans les bandes dessinées ? Comment ces phénomènes transforment-ils le rôle de l’auteur, ou la fonction de l’éditeur, ou encore la pratique de l’exposition de bande dessinée ? Du Japon aux États-Unis en passant par la France, l’Allemagne ou le Canada, ce livre met en évidence la fécondité du croisement entre études intermédiales et études de bande dessinée.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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.
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".