Littérature à lier. La folie littéraire aux XIXe et XXe siècles: histoire d'un paradigme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is madness? What is literature? What relationship does madness and literature have with each other? Presumptuous ones pretend to answer these questions without embarrassment. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, men of letters believed to achieve it. Better, they made a category, that of fous littéraires. The thesis tries to trace the history of this particular category, from his first promoters in the nineteenth century, Charles Nodier and Octave Delepierre, to its main agitators in the following century, Raymond Queneau and André Blavier. The aim is to pose an historical and sociological point of view on specific madness and literature discourses taken together, that fous littéraires are basically liable to their category by the absence of anthumous and posthumous reception encountered. In view of the fact that this history is not unrelated with the multiple metamorphoses and migrations that literature and madness has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the present study also traces the origins of this rapprochement between madness and literature among specialists in the field of madness themselves, the alienists, and the singular works they have at their disposal in their offices / reading rooms, that are not unconnected with what was later known in some circles as art brut and écrits bruts. By examining with a fine-tooth comb the works of these men of letters and of mind, moreover by analysing the works of the fous littéraires themselves contained in it, it seems clear that the madness which grip these illustrious unknowns may not be just a matter of reception.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".