Bibliographic record
Abstract
Louis Dantin est-il l’auteur des vers de Nelligan ? En répondant provisoirement oui à cette question, posée par Valdombre en 1938 et depuis reprise par de nombreux critiques, cet article s’intéresse au problème de l’allonymie chez Dantin. L’étude comparée de textes poétiques et narratifs « signés » par Nelligan, Silvio et Eugène Seers permet en effet de dégager une allégorèse de type biographique où l’écrivain se ferait le fossoyeur de lui-même et de ses masques. Les allonymes et autres noms propres qui désignent provisoirement l’écrivain participent ainsi d’une axiologie euphorique où, en s’absorbant tous dans celui de Louis Dantin, ils signent en définitive la naissance possible et efficace de Dantin lui-même, ce nom devenant d’office la marque persistante de l’homme, c’est-à-dire celle sous laquelle l’histoire le retiendra tout autant comme poète que comme critique.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".