MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1606671405 · doi:10.7202/1015189ar

Les séries télévisées et l’esthétique carnavalesque

2013· article· fr· W1606671405 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean-Pierre Esquénazi

Bibliographic record

VenueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiques · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans son livre sur Rabelais, Mikhaïl Bakhtine pose les principes d’une esthétique carnavalesque qui serait à l’origine de l’ensemble de la littérature « hétéroglossique », c’est-à-dire capable de brasser les discours peuplant un univers social. L’auteur établit un parallèle entre ces écrits et certaines fictions télévisuelles où se manifestent les traits caractéristiques du carnavalesque (la grossièreté, le brassage des genres, la conquête d’un point de vue discordant, l’impertinence envers les puissances), inspirés par le bref renversement social que constituent les carnavals au Moyen Âge. L’auteur propose de regarder un moment de l’histoire des séries télévisées à travers la perspective carnavalesque, capable selon lui de rendre compte du projet de ces séries. L’auteur étudie en détail la narration de deux séries carnavalesques :The Simpsons(1989-…) etBoston Legal(2004-2008). Dans la première, la narration fait d’une petite ville fictive, Springfield, un microcosme des attitudes et des stéréotypes américains aperçus à travers la loupe de la famille Simpson. Dans la seconde, des juristes obsédés, obsessionnels et pervers se confrontent aux douleurs d’une Amérique vacillante.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCinémas Revue d études cinématographiquesSame topicLiterature and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207