Publics souhaités, publics refusés : les publics comme critères de la valeur de l’oeuvre dans les années 1550
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le contexte des tensions poétiques exacerbées des années 1550, les lectorats circonscrits par les auteurs sont manipulés comme arguments pour construire la valeur d’une oeuvre ou lui ôter tout crédit. Les poètes novateurs et leurs adversaires s’emploient ainsi à désigner les publics qu’ils prétendent avoir, à rejeter les publics qu’ils estiment indignes et à se refuser mutuellement des publics de valeur. Ces débats, par écrits interposés, nous donnent des indices pour mieux comprendre les échelles de valeur alors en discussion, non seulement à propos des oeuvres mais aussi des publics. Les pairs, les doctes, les têtes couronnées ou encore les femmes apparaissent ainsi comme des lectorats plus ou moins légitimants selon les différents points de vue des auteurs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".