MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557255062

Marie Uguay et Saint-Denys Garneau, au bord du vide

2010· article· fr· W1557255062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mylène Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiterature, Musicology, and Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a comparative analysis of the works of two Quebecois poets, Saint-Denys Garneau and Marie Uguay who have many common points. Both express a conscience and a lucid vision of death. Their poetic works show that their lyric subjects are situated in a sort of “in-between”, an excrescence of time, a threshold they are trying to name. Is it what Marie Uguay calls “Outre-vie” or the “faction” of Saint-Denys? The subjects explore a particular space-time, a place that is reminiscent of limbo, life and death at the same time. The subjects are on the border of seemingly insuperable limits on the other side of which life seems to dwell. As prisoners of these in-between spaces, they are alone, hurt, as if on one side of a closed window, opening toward an inaccessible world. Nevertheless, they want to cross all these thresholds, physical or metaphorical, and embrace life: crossing these “ bloodshed limits” as Marie Uguay writes. Indeed, the subjects are wounded, fragmented, but against all odds, they search for a path, to go on in order to fight imprisonment, immobility. Hope comes from writing, specifically poetry that makes everything possible and draws a line and bridges; opens a pathway toward light and life.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicLiterature, Musicology, and Cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207