Analyse rhétorique des Femmes illustres de Madeleine et Georges de Scudéry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this master's paper, the author studies the written construction of the ethos of the female characters in the essay from Madeleine and Georges de Scudery that was published in 1642 in Paris, Les Femmes illustres ou les harangues heroiques. She demonstrates how the authors refused the usual accepted practices in literature at that time to claim a right for women to develop their intellect in the way men could develop theirs. Therefore, she compares the contents of the essay with two important visions of women in literature: one of a strong women, as exposed in the literature linked to the "Querelle des femmes", and one of a weeping mistress screaming out all of her pain and sorrow, inspired from the Heroides d'Ovide. She shows how the text of the Scudery is different from the ones related to the "Querelle des femmes". She studies the formal characteristics of the harangue and she compares a rhetoric analysis of the scuderian texts with a quick study of the latin epistles. By doing so, the author wants to make the originality emerge out of the female characters of the Femmes illustres. She wants to emphasize the fact that the authors of that essay allowed women to become the subjects rather than the objects of the speeches. They gave them a chance to express their courage, their pride and their ambitions rather than confining them exclusively to family, love and religion matters, breaking out the traditional scope of the female speech.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".