Bibliographic record
Abstract
Art oral, le conte du renouveau repose sur un hic et nunc énonciatif qui appelle une double présence : celle de l’artiste ; celle de son auditoire. Le conte oral n’existe en effet que lorsqu’il est proféré et entendu. Dans ce contexte, on comprendra que l’adresse (sous forme d’apostrophe ou autre) est le procédé rhétorique privilégié par les conteurs afin d’engager l’attention de leur auditoire. Cet article réfléchit aux enjeux formels et esthétiques de l’adresse en contexte de conte pour ensuite en découvrir les corollaires éthiques. Dans la mesure où « la capacité d’échanger des expériences » (Benjamin) se trouve au coeur de l’acte de conter, l’adresse du conte serait tout autant un appel à être entendu qu’un appel à entendre l’autre. Ce faisant, l’article éprouve l’hypothèse selon laquelle le procédé formel d’apostrophe, dans l’art du conte, ne trouve son sens plein que dans la dimension sociale, voire biopolitique de la multitude (Negri), de sa réalisation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".