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
Comment l’écrivain anglo-québécois se présente-t-il ? À partir de quels lieux — imaginaires ou non — écrit-il ? Qu’en est-il de ses relations avec les héritages littéraires québécois et canadien ? Afin de répondre à ces questions, l’auteure s’intéresse aux textes essayistiques et non fictionnels de Mordecai Richler, de Gail Scott et de David Homel, trois écrivains anglo-montréalais qui entretiennent avec le champ littéraire québécois des rapports complexes et singuliers. La lecture de ces trois auteurs sera l’occasion d’une réflexion sur les héritages culturels et sur la constitution des mémoires littéraires, mais permettra également d’interroger la catégorie critique de l’« écrivain anglo-québécois », étiquette certes opératoire qui mérite néanmoins d’être remise en perspective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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