Ce que la sociocritique fait au théâtre. Notes sur les comédies d’Alfred de Musset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les études que Claude Duchet a consacrées à Alfred de Musset, particulièrement à Lorenzaccio et aux Caprices de Marianne, ont renouvelé en profondeur, non seulement la compréhension de l’oeuvre de l’auteur de La confession d’un enfant du siècle, mais aussi, plus largement, le champ des études théâtrales, que la sociocritique enrichit de perspectives nouvelles. C’est ce que cet article montre, en revenant tout d’abord sur l’apport de Claude Duchet aux études mussétiennes, en amont et en aval de 1971 et de l’invention de la sociocritique, puis en relisant, à la lumière de ses propositions, l’une des pièces les plus originales du répertoire de Musset, Le chandelier. Comme tout texte théâtral, cette pièce est de nature hybride, constituée d’un double langage verbal et non verbal, mais cette hybridité se double d’une tension supplémentaire, dans la mesure où, supposément destiné à la lecture, Le chandelier s’avère constamment tendu vers les virtualités de la représentation. Elle explore ainsi la jonction de l’intime et du collectif grâce à une mise en question de la parole que la sociocritique et les travaux de Claude Duchet, mieux qu’aucune autre approche, permettent de mettre au jour.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".