L’accompagnement <i>in absentia</i> par la créationlittéraire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
« Accompagner » renvoie étymologiquement à cette action de « prendre (quelqu’un) comme compagnon ». Verbe transitif, accompagner implique donc un objet direct qui, dans le sens le plus communément accepté, renvoie à une présence humaine. Cependant, pour l’écrivain·e en train d’écrire, est-il possible de penser et d’expérimenter, à la fois psychiquement et physiquement, une forme d’accompagnement in absentia qui, d’une part, n’impliquerait pas d’autre présence humaine, et d’autre part, dont l’objet direct serait la personne même de l’écrivain·e ? Cet article, écrit à quatre mains par deux primo romanciers, explore comment on peut penser l’instant de la création littéraire comme une expérience fondamentalement solitaire mais qui, en elle-même, accompagne l’écrivain·e qui tente de la mettre en forme. (BCG et PY)
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".