Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este texto propõe uma reflexão sobre Une autobiographie américaine, conjunto de 10 romances do escritor canadense de origem haitiana Dany Laferrière (1953-), e mais especificamente sobre dois deles, Comment faire l’amour avec un nègre sans se fatiguer e Cette grenade dans la main du jeune nègre est-elle une arme ou un fruit?, a partir do conceito de autoficção, criado por Serge Doubrovsky, já que em todos os romances o protagonista tem, embora raramente, o verdadeiro nome próprio do autor, e mais freqüentemente, um apelido que ele afirma ter em família (Vieux ou Vieux Os). Une autobiographie américaine forma um painel bastante fragmentado de sua vida, dando conta da deriva e do nomadismo que caracterizam a diáspora haitiana. Doubrovsky lembra que quando se escreve autobiografia, tenta-se contar toda sua história, desde as origens; já na autoficção pode-se recortar a história em fases diferentes, dando uma intensidade narrativa própria do romance. Résumé: Ce texte propose une reflexion sur Une autobiographie américaine, ensemble de 10 romans de l’écrivain canadien (québécois) d’origine haïtienne Dany Laferrière (1953-), et plus spécifiquement sur deux romans, Comment faire l’amour avec un nègre sans se fatiguer e Cette grenade dans la main du jeune nègre est-elle une arme ou un fruit?, à partir du concept d’autofiction, créé par Serge Doubrovsky, puisque dans tous les romans le protagoniste porte, bien que rarement, le vrai nom propre de l’auteur, et plus souvent, un petit nom qu’il affirme avoir en famille (Vieux ou Vieux Os). Une autobiographie américaine forme un paneau bien fragmentaire de sa vie, rendant compte de la dérive et du nomadisme qui caractérisent la diaspora haïtienne. Doubrovsky rappelle que lorsqu’on écrit une autobiographie on essaie de raconter toute l’histoire depuis les origines tandis que dans l’autofiction on peut recouper l’histoire dans des phases différentes, tout en leur donnant une intensité narrative propre du roman.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".