Outils, objets, supports: Insérer le numérique dans l’histoire matérielle de l’édition littéraire au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les perceptions communes tendent à opposer le livre et le numérique, leur caractère tangible et virtuel semblant irréconciliables. Pourtant, la saisie de leurs caractéristiques et de leur évolution historique suppose de s’intéresser à leur matérialité : quels sont les facteurs matériels impliqués dans leur double fonction d’enregistrement et de diffusion ? L’étude conjointe des pratiques éditoriales littéraires et des pratiques littéraires numériques, ici inscrite dans le contexte du Québec, appelle une prise en compte de l’idée générique de publication (comme « mise à disposition publique ») et une attention portée aux manifestations exploratoires au point de contact entre littérature et culture numérique. Abstract Common perceptions tend to oppose the book and the digital, their tangible and virtual nature seeming to be irreconcilable. However, to understand their characteristics and their historical development, we need to look at their materiality: what are the material factors involved in their dual function of recording and dissemination? The joint study of literary publishing practices and digital literary practices, here set in the context of Quebec, calls for consideration of the generic idea of publication (as ‘making available to the public’) and attention to exploratory manifestations at the point of contact between literature and digital culture.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".