Bibliographic record
Abstract
t would be difficult to find another author in contemporary critical thought as committed to the question of literature as Maurice Blanchot (1907Blanchot ( -2003)); it would be even more difficult to find another author as determined to avoid the traditional question-What is literature?-with as much rigor and dedication as Blanchot.Literature, in Blanchot's understanding, constitutes an event rather than a phenomenon and, as such, is characterized by a process of perpetual disappearance.By the same token Blanchot' s writings consistently bear witness to literary language's refusal of metaphysical logic, which requires an object that can be properly circumscribed, held before it, subjected to formal analysis and, finally, conceptualized by means of a comprehensive definition (even if that definition remains dialectically open to correction).It would not be entirely inappropriate, in this respect, to suggest that Blanchot's concern situates itself closer to the plural question: 'Where/When/How is literature?' Above all, however, this would be a question that neither demands nor expects an answer; hence a question of which it would be more accurate to say that it speaks toward literature or, more precisely, toward that very refusal which, inscribed within every literary endeavour, is synonymous with what Blanchot refers to as the silence peculiar to literature.What is at stake here concerns not only literary language; for if, despite his unapologetic atheism, Blanchot is incapable of avoiding the 'question of God'-even as this question remains inseparable, in his work, from the question of the 'death of God'-it is due to the suspicion, implicit in his work, that the silence peculiar to literary language is never far from the silence peculiar to certain kinds of religious discourse.Although Blanchot is never entirely certain as to the precise nature of this strange relation (without relation) between literary and religious language, he nonetheless does not simply avoid the exigency of this incertitude but, on the contrary, preserves a place for it in his treatment of literature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".