« L’oeuvre flambe et son modèle meurt » : sacre et imaginaire de l’écriture dans Miracle de la rose de Jean Genet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article défend une analyse du deuxième roman de Jean Genet, Miracle de la rose (1946), à partir du sacré appréhendé comme une logique particulière de l’écriture, ce qui nous permet de rendre compte des effets de sens que celle-ci produit. Le sacré genetien ne se réduit en effet jamais à une thématique, ni à une esthétique. Pris comme un espace rituel, le roman est le lieu d’expression du sacre de l’écrivain dès lors que le sacrifice de l’être aimé en constitue l’horizon d’attente. Pastiche d’un merveilleux hagiographique, Miracle de la rose relate en creux comment Genet se fait écrivain, comment advient ainsi le « miracle » de l’écriture, au prix toutefois de l’irrémédiable solitude de celui qui écrit. En suivant cette piste, nous entendons donc éclairer certains aspects de l’agonisme dont l’œuvre entière de Genet procède.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".