Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Love ItShoeless Joe Willie Steele (bio) I can recall with great clarity the first time I saw Field of Dreams. It's a story I've retold dozens of times over the years, but the CliffsNotes version is this: while my brothers and some friends of ours went to see the latest installment of the Indiana Jones franchise in the summer of 1989, I went by myself across the theatre to see a movie about a guy who heard a voice, built a baseball field on his farm, brought Shoeless Joe Jackson back from the dead, and was eventually reunited with his own long-deceased father. Here is what I remember about first reading the novel on which that movie is based, W. P. Kinsella's Shoeless Joe, sometime after I saw the movie. It might have been a month, or it might have been a couple of years, I really have no idea. What I can say with great confidence is this: I've read that book probably more than any other book ever. And while it's not my favorite novel—my students will tell you that spot is reserved for Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn—I have to admit that I loved Shoeless Joe when I first read it, and I enjoy it as much today as I did back then, whenever that happened to be. Reading that book led me to my master's thesis, my doctoral dissertation, and eventually to Kinsella reaching out to ask if I'd be interested in writing his biography. Much of what I've done since then, including editing this journal, can be traced back to me reading Shoeless Joe that very first time. But that's not why I like the book. As a literature professor for more than twenty-five years, I've been trained to look for symbolism and tropes in an effort to unlock some type of hidden meaning or profound message. I will be the first to admit that this type [End Page 5] of approach has probably turned off more students from the joy of reading more than anything else in the history of education. Kinsella himself once told me that he never read an analysis of the symbolism in his work that told him something he hadn't already intended on being there. In fact, he was only partially kidding when he said he often placed certain symbols or references in his texts to give academics sexual gratification. The first question I ask any of my students, from first semester freshmen to soon-to-be graduates in a senior capstone course, is "What do you think about it?" This always leads to students telling me what they loved (or, more often than I would like, hated) about the text in question. I'll try to keep this question in mind as I write this response to Shoeless Joe. Not everyone will agree, and that's fine. When I was first asked to write this article, knowing someone would be writing a counter-narrative about why they don't like the book, I said I would do it with the stipulation that I wouldn't be allowed to see what the other author had written until after my manuscript had been finished. Admittedly I now wish that I could at least take a quick peek at what he or she wrote. After all, how could someone not like Kinsella's book? Every time Field of Dreams is mentioned on a large scale—for instance, before the first Major League Baseball game at the movie site in 2021—people on social media, sports columnists, and commentators feel the need to have a "hot take" about why the film is overrated and too sentimental, too unbelievable, too white, too patriarchal, too whatever. And people often feel compelled to retweet me or forward these articles, expecting me (I suppose) to be upset or to make some impassioned response about how wrong they are. I know the novel evokes the same types of reactions, as some people say this book isn't "real" literature, whatever that may mean. To those who expect such a...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle