Processualités des œuvres numériques : Entre génétique et performativité composée des œuvres à travers le temps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the study of digital literary works, whose existence no longer needs to be demonstrated. If these works have often been examined by their poetic characteristics (multimodal dimension, interactivity, etc.), the understanding of their immediate anchorage in their context (technological and sociodiscursive) remains to be perfected. It is a study of the materiality of the digital works that this article proposes, allowing to seize them in their processual nature under two angles: the upstream and the downstream of the work. The attention paid to the genetics of digital literary works leads to attesting to the difficulties posed by writing in a digital context, which is hidden behind often opaque systems. The study of the performativity of works, on the other hand, allows us to situate them in their environment and to better observe their dependence on the contexts in which they are read. The understanding of digital literary practices is thus enhanced, as the works are perceived differently than by their immanent characteristics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".