Le cinéma, un vieux média ? Ralenti des images et lenteur du récit dans Point Omega de Don DeLillo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article présente, dans une première partie, le concept de cinéfiction qui caractérise le rapport performatif de la littérature au cinéma. Il réalise, dans une deuxième partie, une analyse cinéfictionnelle dePoint Oméga (2010) de Don DeLillo dont la visée consiste à montrer comment le roman prolonge le ralenti des images de24 Hour Psycho de Douglas Gordon (1993). Cette analyse reprend la notion de « remake » que Sébastien Rongier a développée dans son ouvrageCinématière(2015) pour l’appliquer aux arts et à la littérature qui entretiennent un dialogue avec le cinéma. Je concevrai en ce sensPoint Oméga comme le remake d’un remake. Or, au lieu de caractériser l’aspect poétique de la lenteur dans le récit de DeLillo à partir d’une conception littéraire de la poésie (disposition des mots sur la page, lyrisme, etc.) comme le font certains de ses commentateurs, je propose de l’envisager à partir des conceptions poétiques du cinéma de Jean Epstein et de Pier Paolo Pasolini.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".