MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521525066 · doi:10.21083/synergies.v0i4.1344

Absence et désir : moteurs de création dans Amandes et melon de Madeleine Monette

2011· article· fr· W1521525066 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kirsty Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueSynergies Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Literature and Critical Theory
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesPaintingStill lifeArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le roman Amandes et melon de Madeleine Monette joue sur le rapport intime qui se tisse entre l’absence et le désir, mettant en scène une artiste, Elvire, qui a recours à la peinture pour comprendre l’absence d’un être aimé. Le roman explore ainsi les façons dont la narration et l’image visuelle peuvent évoquer l’absence ainsi que les multiples façons dont l’absence et le désir s’informent dans et par la création artistique. De plus, c’est souvent par le genre pictural de la nature morte que le roman affiche sa conception du rapport qui existe entre l’art, l’absence et le désir. Cette analyse se penche sur ces phénomènes afin de cerner les ressemblances et les dissemblances entre les pratiques littéraires de l’écrivaine et les pratiques plastiques du personnage artiste que l’écrivaine met en scène. The novel Amandes et melon by Madeleine Monette plays on the intimate connection that is woven between absence and desire by examining an artist, Elvire, who uses his painting to understand the absence of a loved one. The novel explores the ways that narration and visual image can evoke absence, as well as the multiple ways that absence and desire are developed in and through artistic creation. Furthermore, it's often through the style of still-life that the novel shows its conception of the connections which exist between art, absence and desire. This analysis examines these phenomena in order to determine the similarities and dissimilarities between the literary practices of the author and the artistic practices of the character whom she depicts. Article reçu le 19/02/2011; accepté le 30/05/2011

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynergies CanadaSame topicFrench Literature and Critical TheoryFrench-language works237,207