MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1576191134 · doi:10.18192/analyses.v1i1.433

Le roman québécois du XIXe siècle : chroniques d’un romancier honteux

2006· article· fr· W1576191134 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Véronique Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoise · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanticismArtHumanitiesAvant gardeCriticismVerdictIdentity (music)Art historyLiteratureAestheticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Québec, le romancier du XIXe siècle est généralement perçu, par la critique littéraire, comme un promoteur de l’identité nationale. Ce verdict semble d’autant plus crédible que les auteurs de l’époque affirment écrire des œuvres catholiques et patriotiques. Or, on se demande, dans ce cas, ce qui les pousse à mettre en scène, dans leurs œuvres, des personnages d’écrivains inspirés des clichés du romantisme et du réalisme balzacien. C’est ce que nous tenterons d’expliquer en nous penchant sur les romans de Pierre-Joseph-Olivier Chauveau et d’Antoine Gérin-Lajoie, Charles Guérin et Jean Rivard.AbstractNineteenth-century Quebec novelists are generally perceived in literary criticism as being strong promoters of national identity. This verdict seems to be particularly credible considering these authors claimed to write catholic and patriotic works. However, one wonders what motivated them to portray characters of writers inspired by clichés of romanticism and Balzacian realism. We intend to explain this misperception by looking at Pierre-Joseph-Olivier Chauveau’s novel Charles Guérin as well as Antoine Gérin-Lajoie’s Jean Rivard.

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)0.002
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalyses Revue de littératures franco-canadiennes et québécoiseSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207