Bibliographic record
Abstract
La dissonance ludo-narrative est un concept important dans le domaine des études (vidéo)ludiques. À la fois cristallisation de débats épistémologiques anciens et outil pratique pour parler d’expérience ou de structure, cette notion demeure en fait assez floue, perdue entre les différentes désignations auxquelles renvoie la « ludo-narrativité ». L’acception rapide de la notion est la conséquence d’une super-applicabilité, au sens d’une utilité pratique et instinctive dans de nombreuses disciplines, qu’il faut remettre en question en raison d’une présentation initiale mal circonscrite. Par l’entremise d’une approche historiographique et théorique, cet article propose de mettre en lumière cette insuffisance et la façon dont elle met en jeu un problème de raison et de perception à remédier. Nous montrerons également comment cette insuffisance de plus en plus perceptible génère des réponses de la part des chercheurs par des travaux offrant – malgré certaines limites – de nouvelles avenues de réflexions dont le recours à la théorie de l’harmonie tonale.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".