Le conte de fées parodique français du XVIIIe siècle : un discours antimerveilleux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À première vue inoffensif, le conte de fées parodique français du XVIIIe siècle \ndissimule, sous le couvert de la féérie, un discours anticontesque et \nantiromanesque. Qu'ils soient explicites ou non, ces propos prennent \ngénéralement forme dans les métalepses émises tant par les narrateurs que par les \nnarrataires dans le texte lui-même ou dans le péritexte auctorial. L'élaboration \nd'une typologie, à partir de dix contes publiés entre 1730 et 1754, offre une vue \nd'ensemble de ce phénomène narratif épars et ouvre la voie à une analyse \ntransversale des discours tenus dans ce trope. Loin d'être innocent, le contenu des \nmétalepses contesques laisse poindre une nouvelle poétique du conte et du roman \nqui s'éloigne progressivement de l'idéal classique régissant toujours ces deux \ngenres au XVIIIe siècle.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".