MIETTES, FORÊTS, CHEMINS ET SQUELETTES DANS LE PLACARD : L’ESSAI, LES CARNETS ET LA RECHERCHE-CRÉATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet essai se propose de réfléchir aux particularités et aux potentialités de la recherche-création littéraire à partir de mes difficultés et de mes doutes, et de rendre perceptible l’horizon que j’ai dégagé des héritages que j’ai reçus et les enjeux qui me sont propres afin d’en arriver à une pratique qui puisse contenir tout à la fois : l’écriture, la lecture, l’enseignement, les savoirs, la recherche et la vie. J’évoque tout au long du texte les découvertes et les ratages qui m’ont menée à participer à des projets de recherche-création impliquant de l’essai, des carnets ou des formes proches, y compris des carnets électroniques et des écritures numériques. Ce faisant, je m’interroge sur l’importance de ces pratiques littéraires comme espaces de découverte de cette « autre vie » en soi dans l’horizon long d’une vie d’écriture – comme découvertes et apprentissages continus et non simplement comme exercices passagers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".