Récit de titane à grandir. Lâhistorique et lâontologique dans lâappréciation du surréalisme. Une critique dâun article recent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal 0 14 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Abstract – By analysing the concrete example of an article published in the journal “Synergies Canada” n°3 (2011), which is representative of a bigger range affecting the historiography of Surrealism, this paper aims to give a contribution in the demystification of ontological (and therefore ideological) approaches reducing the accuracy and the seriousness of “scientific” appraisals of Surrealism, mainly when they prefer to follow less the facts and the documents than the metaphysical chattering, or even the slanders issued from enemies of the surrealist movement. The false image of Surrealism which derives from such methods will be discussed in three sections showing the deficiencies and the distortions of this very article from a historical, ontological and documentary point of view. Keywords: Surrealism, Breton, Bounoure, Schuster, Chénieux-Gendron. Résumé – En analysant l’exemple concret d’un article paru dans la revue “Synergies Canada” n°3 (2011), représentatif d’un ensemble plus vaste affectant l’historiographie surréaliste, cette étude veut contribuer à la démystification des démarches ontologiques (et donc idéologiques) qui réduisent notablement l’exactitude et le sérieux des appréciations “scientifiques” du surréalisme, surtout quand elles préfèrent s’en tenir moins aux faits et aux documents qu’aux bavardages métaphysiques, voire à des hostilités issues des ennemis du mouvement surréaliste. La fausseté de l’image du surréalisme qui en résulte sera analysée en trois volets révélant les carences et les distorsions de cet article du point de vue historique, ontologique et documentaire. Mots clés: surréalisme, Breton, Bounoure, Schuster, Chénieux-Gendron.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".