HUSTON, Nancy. Lignes de faille. Arles: Actes Sud; Montréal: Leméac, 2006.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lignes de faille.Arles: Actes Sud; Montréal: Leméac, 2006.487p. Nubia HanciauEntão eles dizem que é sempre importante falar, falar, falar, perguntar à criança quais as motivações para seu mau comportamento, deixá-la se explicar antes de lhe mostrar, gentilmente, como fazer uma escolha mais apropriada na próxima vez.Jamais nela bater (p.39).Em Lignes de faille (2006), a narrativa se desenrola de 2004 a 1944, da contemporaneidade e realidade do século XXI à Alemanha nazista e à última Guerra Mundial.A América de Bush, o III Reich de Hitler, a guerra no Iraque, a pornografia, a política e a amnésia, o que têm em comum?Nancy Huston pinta quatro quadros, nos quais une o antagônico por meio de dois meninos e duas meninas, crianças narradoras da saga de uma família judia que guardacomo costuma acontecer -um grande segredo, perscrutado em quatro etapas narrativas, que se sucedem e retrocedem no tempo: o filho, o pai, a avó e a bisavó descrevem, aos seis anos de
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.302 | 0.073 |
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".