Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entre 1962 et 1975, le journal néerlandais Pep présente une tentative de diffusion et d’imitation du modèle franco-belge. À sa création, Pep mise sur les deux héros Tintin et Mickey. Mais au bout d’une année d’existence, pour atteindre un nouveau lectorat adolescent, le journal adopte une identité inspirée de la tradition franco-belge d’après-guerre, en s’appuyant surtout sur Spirou et Pilote associés dans un même modèle. À partir de 1965, les rédacteurs en chef Peter Middeldorp et Hetty Hagebeuk favorisent même l’émergence d’une scène esthétique nouvelle largement tributaire du modèle francophone, avec notamment Daan Jippes, Henk Albers ou Dick Matena, qui réinvestissent à leur manière les traditions de Morris, Goscinny, Uderzo et Franquin. Le marché qui se constitue autour du journal apparaît comme prometteur pour un certain nombre d’acteurs belges, comme Morris et Delporte qui produisent directement pour Pep. Pour autant, cette dynamique ne permettra pas aux auteurs néerlandais de parvenir à des publications durables à l’international.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".