Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dès sa parution en 1731, et réédition en 1753, L’histoire de Manon Lescaut et du chevalier des Grieux devenait un texte de base dans l’imagination française. Le sujet de plusieurs grands commentaires, notamment de Sgard (1989), Singerman (1987), Hazard (1924), et Fort (1985), les débats qui entourent le roman soulignent les interprétations de la signification imbue par Prévost. Mais ces lectures chrétiennes-autobiographiques et féministes sont insuffisantes si nous voulons comprendre le personnage de Manon et sa voix telle qu’elle transparait sous la narration de des Grieux. Après la recherche de Ramond (2014), cet article vise à analyser l’intertexte entre Manon Lescaut et Iphigénie de Racine qui surgit de la parodie jouée par Manon et mal comprise par des Grieux ou en dissonance avec son récit. Nous catégoriserons les répliques créées par son jeu racinien avec son amant pour mieux comprendre les questions « Qui est Manon Lescaut ? » et « Quelle est sa voix ? »
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.013 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".