Le théâtre français à l'étranger au XIXe siècle : histoire d'une suprématie culturelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Au XIXe siècle, le répertoire dramatique français a connu un extraordinaire succès dans le monde entier, de la même façon que le cinéma américain domine de nos jours les écrans des cinq continents. Jouées en français ou traduites, les pièces françaises ont été applaudies sous toutes les latitudes, au point qu'on a pu écrire, en 1856, que "l'imagination de la France" était devenue "l'imagination du monde". C'est cette page méconnue de l'histoire des relations culturelles internationales que les 29 études rassemblées ici entendent retracer. De l'Australie au Québec, de Naples à New York, le présent ouvrage permet de comprendre les différentes formes prises par cette suprématie qui, loin d'être anecdotique, a rendu possible la diffusion des idées et des moeurs françaises. À l'heure de "l'exception culturelle", il n'est pas inutile de se souvenir de ce qui fut un véritable "phénomène de société" à l'échelle mondiale"--P. [4] of cover.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".