Les chants des oiseaux dans les fables : topoï, types et savoirs zoologiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le bestiaire très riche des fables de la fin du XVIIe siècle offre un terrain d’exploration idéal pour vérifier l’hypothèse des topiques sonores. Parmi les nombreux corbeaux, cigognes, coqs, hiboux, pigeons, moineaux, aigles, paons, rossignols, tous ou presque ont une voix singulière, reconnaissable, imitable. Tous ou presque sont anthropomorphisés, parlent et jouent un rôle essentiel dans la fiction. Cet article cherche ainsi à répondre aux questions suivantes à partir des fables de La Fontaine, Perrault, Furetière, Fénelon et Mme de Villedieu ainsi que de Philippe Desprez et Houdar de la Motte : leschants des oiseaux sont-ils toujours envisagés selon des critères esthétiques ou selon leurs effets sur l’auditoire ? Peut-on dégager des topoï narratifs associés aux chants des oiseaux, voire aux chants de certains oiseaux ? Ou les oiseaux sont-ils plutôt des types dont le chant spécifique serait une caractéristique ? Quelle est la place des savoirs zoologiques dans ces représentations ?
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".