Stratégies éditoriales dans les éditions des Arrêts d’Amours de Martial d’Auvergne publiées au XVIe siècle : quand l’imprimeur-libraire choisit son public
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Véritable succès de librairie au XVIe siècle, les Arrêts d’Amours de Martial d’Auvergne ont connu trente-et-une éditions entre 1500 et 1597. Loin d’être homogène, cette production présente de fortes variantes typographiques et textuelles au gré des mises en livre successives de l’oeuvre. Les imprimeurs-libraires se sont en effet approprié cette dernière et, en l’intégrant à leur politique éditoriale, l’ont adaptée à leur contexte éditorial et, partant, à leur public. En analysant l’énonciation éditoriale des trois premiers moments éditoriaux des Arrêts d’Amours, notre article visera à constater, à des périodes parfois contemporaines, les tensions existant autour de cette oeuvre et de son orientation en direction de publics différents, tantôt larges et « populaires », tantôt plus restreints et spécialistes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".