MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564032176 · doi:10.18192/analyses.v7i2.351

<em>Ryan</em>: Une rencontre dans l'espace figural de la souffrance

2012· article· fr· W1564032176 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Audrey Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoise · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesESPACEArtEmptinessPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Je me propose, dans cet article, de suivre le fil ténu — mais tenace — qui relie, dans une œuvre, les figures les unes aux autres. L’œuvre que j’entends parcourir de cette façon est le court métrage Ryan, de Chris Landreth : j’y cheminerai en passant d’un motif à l’autre (la blessure et l’agression), d’une figure à l’autre (figures du vide, de la disparition, de l’échec et de la mort), pour m’arrêter, enfin, sur ce que j’appelle l’espace figural de la souffrance : espace intersubjectif où la souffrance, ni directement perceptible, ni même pensable, ne peut être qu’éprouvée.AbstractIn this paper, my purpose is to follow the fine but strong thread that links, in an artwork, figures together. The artwork I will explore in that way is a short film from Chris Landreth, Ryan. From a pattern to another (injury and aggression), from a figure to another (figures of emptiness, disappearance, failure and death), my analysis will finally end on what I call a “figural space of suffering”: intersubjective space where suffering, neither perceptible to us, nor thinkable, may only be felt.

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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoiseSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207