Bibliographic record
Abstract
La reconstruction de la source énonciative à partir de divers indices textuels d’un « corps » est absolument primordiale dans le cas d’un acte de discours comme le témoignage de l’univers concentrationnaire, celui-ci ayant précisément comme raison d’être de faire taire les voix et d’éliminer toute trace des corps. L’ethos au sens que lui donne l’analyse du discours permet au lecteur des témoignages d’imaginer la voix et le corps de celui qui parle et de redonner une place aux survivants et aux rescapés dans l’espace social et discursif. Se donne à lire dans ces témoignages une oscillation entre corporation et décorporation, signe de la volonté de faire coexister le corps du survivant avec le corps martyrisé du camp et de la nécessité de redonner une unité, une individualité à l’énonciateur (témoin et survivant). Cette tension va du non-dit, de l’euphémisation discursive, à la littérarisation de cette lacune par l’adoption de procédés d’évitement comme l’ironie.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".