La plume et le plan. L’écrivain, l’urbaniste et la construction d’un discours social de la ville
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’idée selon laquelle la littérature offre un point de vue sur les représentations des villes est à l’origine d’un domaine d’étude à part entière, les Literary urban studies, qui émergent à la fin des années 1990 dans la communauté scientifique. Cet article revient brièvement sur leur généalogie et le cadre théorique qu’elles proposent, puis les auteurs développent une présentation comparée de deux utopies littéraires : l’ouvrage Travail de l’écrivain français Émile Zola, paru en 1901 et la nouvelle « News from nowhere: the future of planning and cities », rédigée par l’urbaniste anglais David Rudlin, parue en 2020 et librement inspirée du roman de William Morris paru un peu plus d’un siècle plus tôt. En mêlant faits historiques et fiction imaginant des futurs alternatifs, les représentations de la ville proposées par ces deux auteurs illustrent la capacité de la forme littéraire à articuler précédents et projets pour construire un discours social sur la ville.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".