MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1522351329

Françoise, Literary Critic: Editorial Reach and Discursive Strategies

2007· article· en· W1522351329 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chantal Savoie

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperLiterary criticismDiscernmentPeriod (music)LiteratureReading (process)Tone (literature)HistorySociologyPoetryHumilityPseudonymAestheticsMedia studiesArtPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The massive emergence of French-Canadian women of letters in journalistic literary practice at the end of the nineteenth century is inseparable from two great social mutations: urbanization and the development of the media. Yet, the literary activity of women during this period still goes largely unrecognized because journalistic writing is often considered secondary to poetry and the novel. A transversal reading of the literary criticism engaged in by women in newspapers and periodicals during this era gives a quantitative idea of the presence of literature in the media and helps bring to light a significant landmark in the history of women’s letters. Pioneering female journalist Robertine Barry (1863-1910), pseudonym Francoise, provides unique insight into the evolution of the discursive strategies used by literary women according to the various platforms they have used. Over her career, she progressed from a tone of excessive humility to one of authority and discernment.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0470.028
Scholarly communication0.0240.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian Literature→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→