La littérature sur le métier : Étude comparée des pratiques créatives d’écriture littéraire dans les universités, en France, aux États-Unis et au Québec.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’ancrage universitaire de la tradition des ateliers d’ecriture est souvent ignore en France, alors qu’il est clairement etabli pour les Etats-Unis. Les histoires des pratiques creatives d’ecriture litteraire s’ecrivent donc de maniere differente, en mettant en jeu des conceptions de la litterature que cette etude cherche a comparer. La consideration des spheres linguistiques et la question des dynamiques internationales d’expansion des pratiques exigent l’examen particulier des cursus quebecois. Comment peut-on caracteriser ces differentes formations ? Quelles representations de l’auteur, du processus redactionnel, de la creativite ou de l’œuvre vehiculent-elles ? Quelles forces de tension et de mutations se dessinent-elles ? Sur les plans diachronique et synchronique, et en etayant l’enquete bibliographique de questionnaires systematiques et recueil de donnees sur le terrain, la comparaison envisagera ses reperes epistemologiques et l’etat actuel des ressources, que les traductions des citations cherchent a rendre accessibles aux francophones.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 it