Pour une pragmatique de l’éthos intime. Le cas des journaux de Benjamin Constant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article appréhende la constitution de l’éthos intime dans les journaux personnels en prenant la pleine mesure de ce que Michel Foucault a appelé les « techniques / technologies du rapport à soi », ou « la pragmatique de soi ». Son attention se porte sur les pratiques réelles de l’écriture du journal, engageant le corps du diariste, comme le montrent les Journaux intimes que Benjamin Constant a tenus entre 1804 et 1816. En revenant aux manuscrits et en s’appuyant sur les énoncés métadiaristiques, on observe ces pratiques à travers l’engagement de trois parties du corps : la jambe, liée à la mobilité du cahier, en tension avec une quête de stabilité et de continuité ; la main qui trace les signes, soumise à l’alphabet et s’en libérant ; l’oeil qui lit, ouvrant un regard panoramique et réflexif sur les faits consignés dans le journal. Trois parties qui mettent en relief le rôle de la technique du rapport à soi chez Constant dans la constitution d’un éthos spécifique.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".