Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour ce nouveau numero d’« Humoresques », l’Association pour le developpement des recherches sur le Comique, le Rire et l’Humour s’interesse a l’humour quebecois. Ce n’est pas aux humoristes contemporains, omnipresents dans la societe, mais plutot a leurs predecesseurs qu’est dedie cet ouvrage, afin de mieux comprendre cette agitation autour de l’humour et plus particulierement de l’humour quebecois. De l’humour politique a un humour que l’on pourrait qualifier de plus leger, sans omettre l’humour visuel ainsi que l’humour dans le conte surnaturel et la litterature fantastique, les collaborateurs de ce numero nous revelent tout sur l’histoire de l’humour quebecois. Comment l’humour quebecois a-t-il reussi a s’accoutumer aux differents courants historiques, politiques, economiques et sociaux ? Comment se manifeste l’humour au Quebec au XIXe siecle alors que le Canada connait une veritable evolution politique ? C’est la question que Robert Aird se pose ici. Comment l’humour peut-il etre liberateur ? La presse est alors le meilleur vecteur de l’humour et la politique constitue tout au long du siecle sa matiere premiere que l’on peut retrouver a travers les differents journaux, tels que Le Canadien , le Fantasque, le Canard ou bien encore l ‘Opinion politique. La presse est railleuse. Tandis que Le Canadien utilisait des sujets serieux pour proner la faconde de maniere tout a fait accorte , Le Fantasque encourageait a la liberte de penser et de s’exprimer et developpe les œuvres
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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 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".