That's interesting.
What exactly is Biblicism?
Do you mean Biblical Literalism?
(For now I'm going to assume by Biblicism you mean Biblical Literalism).

Yes, I believe one could absolutely hold to inerrancy without biblical literalism. (Although some might refer to this as infallibility rather then inerrancy).
It really depends on exactly what you believe in - and of - the bible.

Are you a biblical literalist?
Are you a biblical inerranist?
Do you believe in biblical infallibility?
Or do you suffer from Bibliolatry?

They are all relevant questions to ask yourself. (Some see Biblical Literalism and Biblical Inerrancy as synonymous with Bibliolatry. [I think I do]).

Now that I've rambled on somewhat, I think what you are talking about is Biblical Infallibility. (And I'll define "infallibility" as follows:

"Infallibility teaches that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. This contrasts with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which holds that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error."

I think the better question might be whether "inerrancy", "infallibility", "accuracy", and "truth" all mean the same thing; if they don't, then is it possible for Scripture to not be infallible yet accurate?

The Church of the Nazarene holds that the bible is inerrant, with regards to it's ability to communicate to us who God is and what our relationship is to Him, and how we can find salvation through Jesus. But with no other commitments. Once we start trying to make the bible say everything perfectly, it often says nothing at all.