Empowerment et postures politiques contemporaines : les exemples d’Annie Ernaux et de Pascal Quignard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La posture littéraire inscrirait la fonction-auteur dans une sorte de pouvoir, certes, pouvoir littéraire d’agir et de réagir avec la condition humaine, mais ce pouvoir est aussi nuancé, se trouvant au cœur de stratégies auctoriales et d’une construction d’une image de soi qui déconstruisent elles-mêmes l’image de l’écrivain contemporain qui « s’engage ». C’est à travers l’ethos et le comportement auctoriaux de deux figures contemporaines, Annie Ernaux et Pascal Quignard, que nous avons tenté d’interroger, à travers le redéploiement de notions comme (dés)engagement/distance, la relation dialectique entre leurs postures littéraires incompatibles avec la société panoptique et ce en inventant d’autres lieux légitimes de résistance : celui de la prise de parole agissante chez Ernaux, pour qui il est nécessaire de former une communauté de solidaires et celui de la prise de distance et de silence avec Quignard, chez qui envisager une communauté des solitaires s’avèrerait salutaire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".