MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486669737 · doi:10.12957/cadsem.2012.10998

O DIABO NÃO FOI CONVIDADO: CONTO FANTÁSTICO E TRADIÇÃO QUEBEQUENSE

2012· article· pt· W1486669737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ana Luiza Ramazzina Ghirardi

Bibliographic record

VenueCaderno Seminal · 2012
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quando parte do Canadá ainda se chamava Nova França, a língua francesaencontrava entraves para se consolidar em sua forma escrita e, por isso, a literaturaquebequense conheceu um nascimento tardio. Por aproximadamente um século,ela se confina quase totalmente à dimensão oral, conhecendo suas primeirasmanifestações escritas apenas quando seu povo começa a resgatar da memóriaancestral canções, contos e lendas. No século XIX, essa literatura escrita revelauma nova figura narrativa, a do contador. Este é um simples e fiel transcritor queadapta histórias criadas pela imaginação popular, ocorridas na França ou nacolônia. Elas são objeto de crença popular e revelam o fantástico e o maravilhoso,descrevendo personagens quotidianos como símbolo de uma cultura que existe eque resiste. Este artigo se propõe a percorrer brevemente a história do Quebec everificar como, inicialmente, prevaleceram as narrativas orais. Em seguida, mostra odesejo de um povo de estabelecer uma literatura escrita, literatura que irá resgatarhistórias do universo oral. Como fio condutor, analisa-se o Conte Populaire deCharles Laberge sob a ótica de Propp (2010) e se sugere como essa mudançada literatura oral para a escrita impactou a criação de uma linguagem fantástica.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueCaderno SeminalSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207