L'antiroman au risque de la réécriture. La redéfinition des stratégies intertextuelles et parodiques dans les mises en prose du «Cligès» et du «Roman de la Violette»
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 14th and 15th centuries, some of the romances and epics stemming from the central Middle Ages were translated into prose at the Court of Burgundy. Among those are Chrétien de Troyes' Cligès (ca. 1176) and Gerbert de Montreuil's le Roman de la Violette (ca. 1227-1229), both of which were rewritten into prose by anonymous authors around the middle of the 15th century (ca. 1455 and ca. 1451). Although literary criticism as often only seen the documentary value of these mises en prose, the poetics of the romance went through various transformations from the 12th to the 15th century. Weaved with intertextuality, both Cligès and le Roman de la Violette originally present themselves as antiromances holding the keys to their own criticism. But as the intertextual strategies undergo massive changes, the antiromance aspects of the versified romances disappear from the rewritten works. Those are then perceived as simple stories of romance and chivalry (« d'armes et d'amour »), influencing the modern idea of the medieval romance. This thesis will examine how the strategies of self-reflexivity, evident marks of intertextuality, literary techniques and parodic games involving commonplaces and motifs of the marvellous evolve from the sources to the rewritten versions. This comparison will allow us to better define the practice of the mise en prose and see how the rewritten novels fit into a new « horizon of expectations » (Hans Robert Jauss) brought by the 15th century.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".