MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1641649835 · doi:10.3138/flor.30.1

De la filiation à la subversion : Les modalités et enjeux des répétitions dans <i>Aucassin et Nicolette</i> et le <i>Roman de Silence</i>

2013· article· fr· W1641649835 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFlorilegium · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicCultural Insights and Digital Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesSilenceSubversionPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Longtemps on a eu du mal à situer Aucassin et Nicolette au sein de la littérature courtoise. Ce travail se sert des écrits sur la répétition de J. Hillis Miller pour montrer qu’à l’échelle intratextuelle, le texte mobilise des mécanismes variés de la répétition qui reflètent et risquent même d’expliquer notre difficulté à le situer à l’échelle intertextuelle. Les répétitions dans la chantefable comportent aussi d’importantes implications politiques : le recours au Roman de Silence aidera à la fois à contextualiser les emplois de la répétition par la chantefable dans la poétique romanesque, et à illustrer comment certaines formes de répétition peuvent résister au patriarcat et à la logique normative, à tel point qu’elles peuvent être qualifiées de « queer ».

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.185 · 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