Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centré sur les figures d’Antonin Artaud et de Kathy Acker, le présent article se penche sur le lien entre l’écriture de soi et l’expérience de la maladie. Opérant ce que l’auteur nomme « un retour du balancier », c’est-à-dire le passage d’une certaine tendance théorique de l’exploration de la pratique d’écriture en tant que pratique lénitive vers la littérature et les textes des deux écrivains, qui explorent respectivement la radicalité d’un refus, cet article appréhende la crise ontologique que précipitent leurs carnets respectifs. De fait, chez Artaud et chez Acker, le soin implique le fait de demeurer au coeur de ce problème, en tant que la maladie ne serait pas le premier ou dernier stade du rapport corporel d’un être ou bien en santé ou bien mort. Il implique de considérer le visage défiguré du malade non comme l’attaque portée contre un corps qui devrait être ou bien sain ou bien mort, mais comme une oeuvre littéraire.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.006 |
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".