MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W182030382

Extrait de Conversation

2016· article· fr· W182030382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Herménégilde Chiasson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtConversationPhilosophyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le texte presente ici «fera partie du recueil Conversation et traite de l'eternel probleme de l'oral vs. l'ecrit mais une sorte de retour par l'ecrit; en fait, ce serait plutot l'ecrit vs. l'oral. Ce texte-ci parle d'un souper avec des gens de Moncton» (lettre de l'auteur a H.-D. Paratte datee le 20 mai 1989). Il illustre bien la maniere recente d 'Hermenegilde Chiasson: une prose continue ou questions individuelles et collectives font l'objet d'un brassage constant, alors que les voix narratives prennent de plus en plus leurs distances (d'ou l'usage accru du Tu et du Vous present des Propheties) dans un rapport continu de la voix principale a l'evolution de ses illusions. [H.-D. Paratte]

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2240.092

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.259
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
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis→French-language works237,207→