Livres polyglottes et conflits linguistiques au XVIe siècle : l’exemple de l’occitan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La situation linguistique du sud de la France se caractérise au XVIe siècle par l’existence de plusieurs langues auxquelles sont attachées des valeurs fortement différenciées. Quelle relation peut-on établir entre cette situation de conflits linguistiques et le caractère plurilingue de nombreuses publications occitanes de cette période ? En étudiant différents types de dispositifs littéraires et typographiques, on constate que la coprésence des langues peut servir, selon les cas, à masquer ces conflits ou à les exhiber, soit pour en faire la matière d’un jeu littéraire, soit afin de (tenter de) retourner la dynamique de ces conflits au profit de la langue minorée. Ces différentes réalisations ont cependant en commun le désir d’offrir aux lecteurs, dotés de compétences diverses, la représentation d’un monde dans lequel cohabitent des langues dont les valeurs demeurent mobiles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".