MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W951155664 · doi:10.22329/p.v7i2.3828

« Insurmontablement étranger au monde » : le Kleist de Gundolf. Note de lecture sur Friedrich GUNDOLF, <i>Heinrich von Kleist</i>

2012· article· fr· W951155664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathalie Lachance

Bibliographic record

VenuePhaenEx · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and Historical Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NATHALIE LACHANCE Il faut se réjouir de voir arriver sur les tablettes des librairies francophones un ouvrage consacré à l'écrivain prussien Heinrich von Kleist (1777-1811), encore trop peu connu hors des frontières allemandes.La récente proposition des éditions du Félin saura éveiller la curiosité du lecteur à l'endroit de Kleist.Elle reprend notamment un texte de Friedrich Gundolf (du cercle du célèbre poète Stefan George) au sujet de Kleist, publié en allemand en 1922 et traduit en français en 1936 par Alexandre Vialatte.Dans sa préface à l'ouvrage, le germaniste et essayiste Eryck de Rubercy tente de compléter le portrait plutôt fragmentaire que l'on se fait de Kleist à la lecture du texte de Gundolf.Suit le court essai de Kleist L'élaboration de la pensée par le discours.Rubercy propose ensuite une chronologie de la vie et des œuvres de Kleist et une très courte bibliographie qui se concentre surtout sur les traductions françaises des œuvres de Kleist.L'ouvrage semble destiné à ceux et celles qui ne connaissent pas cet écrivain que les Allemands élèvent maintenant au rang de Goethe et de Schiller.La lecture des textes de Gundolf et de Rubercy, inspirés et impeccablement écrits, laissera cependant le lecteur sur sa faim, car si l'on y

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhaenExSame topicPhilosophy and Historical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207