Fonction auteur et auteur-fiction chez André Gide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its publication, André Gide's works mainly generated biographical analyses. As Gide's texts are first-person narratives and as the stories written recall the author's life experience, especially as far as homosexuality is concerned, it is tempting to think that each book he wrote is somehow autobiographical. The point of this thesis is to question those analyses which seem to forget an essential dimension: fiction. Instead of thinking that each text is a mirror reflecting Gide's image, we are going to see how the author set himself in his fiction. Gide takes a posture: through his literary work, he doesn't show himself as he is, neither as he thinks he is, but rather as he would likely to be seen. The author-function established correspond to the author's invention of his own character: the author is created through fiction. The role Gide would like to endorse consists in defending pederasty. He is the one who creates gidian immoralism, a new ethics both hedonist and antimoralist. As Gide writes against social conventions and protestant moral, he establishes himself the prophet of a new religion. The posture Gide takes frees him from the guilt he inherited from his protestant upbringing for being a homosexual, trying to persuade not only his readership but also himself that he is right of doing so.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.009 |
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".